Healthspan Ltd – UT – Admissibility of Expert Evidence in £56 Million VAT Dispute

• The Upper Tribunal (UT) largely sided with HMRC in a procedural dispute regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in Healthspan Ltd’s £56 million VAT claim on food supplements.
• The UT found that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) applied the wrong legal test for admitting expert evidence, focusing too broadly on fairness rather than whether the evidence was reasonably required and proportionate to resolve the appeal.
• As a result, the UT set aside the FTT’s decision, limiting Healthspan’s ability to rely on expert evidence to only the nutritional profile of the products, and refusing broader evidence on the scientific understanding of food and its fit with modern diets.

Source KPMG

---

UT Clarifies Test for Expert Evidence in Healthspan VAT Supplement Case

• In HMRC v Healthspan [2026] UKUT 194 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal erred in allowing expert evidence too broadly in a VAT case about food supplements.
• The UT said the right starting point is whether the evidence is “reasonably required to resolve the proceedings,” by analogy with CPR 35.
• The FTT had focused too much on fairness and potential future challenges, rather than necessity, proportionality, and prejudice to HMRC.
• The UT also found some of the FTT’s reasons were inadequate, but this was secondary to the main error.
• The UT set aside and remade the decision, limiting the scope of the expert evidence permitted.

Source: claritaxnews.com

Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.

---

---