Emile Heskey, former England footballer, has been mandated to settle nearly £200,000 in legal fees due to a tax dispute. The detailed case reveals significant financial and legal details as follows:
- A specialist costs judge has deemed £194,794.42 in legal fees as ‘reasonable and proportionate’.
- HMRC initiated legal action in 2017 over £1.637m in unpaid taxes linked to 15 penalty notices.
- Heskey admitted liability for the debt in November 2019, avoiding a trial.
- The final amount Heskey owes may exceed the court-ordered figure due to accruing interest.
Specialist costs judge Mark Whalan ruled that Emile Heskey, former England striker, is required to pay £194,794.42 in legal fees. The judge described the fees as ‘reasonable and proportionate,’ given the case’s complexity.
The dispute dates back to 2017 when HMRC initiated legal action against Heskey over unpaid taxes linked to 15 penalty notices issued since 2005. Initially, a trial was scheduled to take place at the High Court in November 2019. However, it was avoided when Heskey admitted liability for the debt.
At a recent hearing in London, barrister Daniel Laking, representing HMRC, detailed the case’s history. Despite his successful club career with Leicester City, Liverpool, Birmingham City, and Aston Villa, Heskey did not attend the hearing and was not represented by legal counsel.
The £194,794.42 that Heskey is now obligated to pay does not include interest, indicating that the final amount he owes could be higher. This sum, described as ‘proportionate’ by costs lawyer Francis Kendall, reflects the substantial amount of tax at stake.
Francis Kendall, Director and costs lawyer at Kain Knight, commented: ‘Given the amount of tax at stake, it is no surprise that the fees were deemed ‘proportionate’. In my experience, the fees incurred by HMRC are near impossible to dispute. The department has an army of in-house lawyers, who charge hourly rates that are well below market rate, or the guideline figures usually allowed on assessment. Counsel also tend to work on reduced fees for HMRC.’
Kendall further noted, ‘It is therefore likely that the legal spend, if in the open market, could have been significantly higher than the sum recovered. Mr Heskey’s own costs would undoubtedly be an interesting comparator.’
In conclusion, this case underscores the significant financial implications for individuals facing complex tax disputes with HMRC.
