Case Number: TC09709
Appeal reference: TC/2023/08794
Corporation tax – appeal against denial of research and development allowances/credits– appeal refused
Judgment date: 4 December 2025
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN
TRIBUNAL MEMBER MOHAMOOD FAROOQ
Between
M&C EDUCATIONAL TRAINING SERVICES LTD
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Richard Brown of the appellant representing the appellant
For the Respondents: Mr Sam Dingley, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs’ Solicitor’s Office
DECISION
Overview of the issues
The appellant appealed against decisions made by HMRC in closure notices issued to the appellant on 16 May 2023 under paragraph 32 of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998 (“FA 1998”) that £8,704.85 of tax is due in respect of its accounting periods ending on 31 July 2020 and 31 July 2021 (“the relevant periods”). The decisions are made on the basis that the appellant is not entitled to certain allowances and credits which it claimed on the basis that it had incurred qualifying expenditure on “research and development” (“R&D”) for the purposes of Chapter 2, of Part 13 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (“CTA 2009”) (“the R&D provisions”).
It is common ground that HMRC followed the correct processes in issuing notices of enquiry under para 24(4) of schedule 18 FA 1998 into the appellant’s corporation tax position in the relevant periods and, on conclusion of those enquiries, in making amendments to the appellant’s corporation tax returns for the relevant periods on the issue of closure notices under para 32 Schedule 18 FA 1998.
In computing its corporation tax liability, under the R&D provisions, the appellant (1) made a claim under s 1044 CTA 2009 to an additional tax deduction of £37,813.00 and of £36,362.00 in respect of sums it claims are qualifying R&D expenditure in each of the relevant periods respectively, and (2) surrendered the entirety of its trading loss for the first relevant period resulting in a tax credit claimed of £5,482.89 and surrendered £15,176 of the loss for the second relevant period resulting in a tax credit claimed for that period of £2,200.52.
Section 1044 (1) provides that a company is entitled to corporation tax relief for an accounting period if it meets each of conditions A, C and D, namely (a) that the company is a small or medium-sized enterprise in the period (condition A in sub-s(2)), (b) the company carries on a trade in the period (condition C in sub-s (4)), and (c) “the company has qualifying Chapter 2 expenditure which is allowable as a deduction in calculating for corporation tax purposes the profits of the trade for the period” (condition D in sub-s (5)). It was common ground that conditions A and C are met. HMRC’s view is that condition D has not been met. For this purpose:
Section 1051 defines the meaning of “qualifying Chapter 2 expenditure” as:
“(a) [the company’s] qualifying expenditure on in-house direct research and development (see section 1052), and
(b) its qualifying expenditure on contracted out research and development (see section 1053).” (Emphasis added.)
Section 1052(1) CTA 2009 states that a company’s “qualifying expenditure on in-house direct research and development” means expenditure incurred by it in relation to which each of conditions A, B, D and E is met.
Condition A is that the expenditure is (a) incurred on staffing costs (see s 1123), (b) incurred on software or consumable items (see s 1125), (c) qualifying expenditure on externally provided workers (see s 1127), or (d) incurred on relevant payments to the subjects of a clinical trial (see s 1140).
Condition B is that the expenditure is “attributable to relevant research and development” undertaken by the company itself (emphasis added).
Condition D is that the expenditure is not incurred by the company in carrying on activities which are contracted out to the company by any person.
Condition E is that the expenditure is not subsidised (see s 1138).
Section 1053 CTA 2009 contains three conditions for expenditure incurred by a qualifying company to be qualifying expenditure on contracted out R&D:
Condition A is that “the expenditure is attributable to relevant research and development undertaken on behalf of the company” (emphasis added).
Condition C is that “the expenditure is not incurred by the company in carrying on activities which are contracted out to the company by any person”.
Condition D is that “the expenditure is not subsidised”.
HMRC’s stance is that the expenditure to which the appellant’s claims relate does not qualify as “in-house direct” R&D expenditure or as “contracted-out” R&D on the basis that it does not meet Condition B under s 1052 or Condition A under s 1053 because the appellant has not shown it is attributable to qualifying R&D. For this purpose:
Section 1006(2) of the Income Taxes Act 2007 provides for the Treasury to make regulations to specify what is and is not to be treated as R&D for the purposes of that section. These regulations are the Research and Development (Prescribed Activities) Regulations 2004 – SI 2004/712 (“the R&D Regs”).
Regulation 2 of the R&D Regs provides that, for the purposes of s 1006, activities that fall to be treated as R&D in accordance with the “Guidelines on the Meaning of Research and Development for Tax Purposes” issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 5 March 2004, are R&D; and activities that do not fall to be treated as such in accordance with those guidelines are not R&D. These guidelines are named the “Business, Energy, Innovation and Skills (BEIS) Guidelines” (“the Guidelines”) and carry the force of law as tertiary legislation.
The Guidelines contained the following main provisions of relevance:
Para 3 states that R&D:
“takes place when a project seeks to achieve an advance in overall knowledge or capability of a science or technology”
Science and technology are defined at paras 15 and 17 respectively as:
“….the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the physical and material universe. Work in the arts, humanities and social sciences, including economics, is not science for the purpose of these guidelines….”
“…the practical application of scientific principles and knowledge where ‘scientific’ is based on the definition of science above.”
A project for the purpose of para 3 is defined at para 19 as:
“a number of activities conducted to a method or plan in order to achieve an advance in science or technology...It should encompass all the activities that collectively serve to resolve the scientific or technological uncertainty associated with achieving the advance.”
Para 4 states that:
“the activities that directly contribute to achieving this advance in science or technology through the resolution of scientific or technological uncertainty are R&D”.
An advance in science or technology is defined at para 6 as:
“an advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology (not a company’s own state of knowledge or capability alone). This includes the adaptation of knowledge or capability from another field of science or technology in order to make such an advance where this adaptation was not readily deducible.”
Para 8 states:
“A process, material, device, product, service or source of knowledge does not become an advance in science or technology simply because science or technology is used in its creation. Work which uses science or technology but which does not advance scientific or technological capability as a whole is not an advance in science or technology.”
Overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology is defined at paras 20 and 22 as follows:
“the knowledge or capability in the field which is publicly available or is readily deducible from the publicly available knowledge or capability by a competent professional working in the field.”
“the routine analysis, copying or adaptation of an existing process, material, device, product or service will not advance overall knowledge or capability, even though it may be completely new to the company or the company’s trade.”
Para 9 provides some examples of products that would constitute such an advance. Paragraph 9c introduces the concept of an “appreciable improvement to an existing process, material, device, product or service” through scientific or technological changes. As HMRC contended, para 9 must be read in the context of the definition at para 6. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that a product with some improved functionality has been produced. Rather, it is only where that functionality is sought/achieved by materially advancing the underlying scientific or technological knowledge in the field that it amounts to R&D.
“Appreciable improvement” is defined in para 23 by reference to changing or adapting the “scientific or technological characteristics of something to the point where it is ‘better’ than the original” such that it would be “acknowledged by a competent professional working in the field as a genuine and non-trivial improvement.” Para 24 stipulates that improvements arising from applying existing science or technology to a new context or trade with only minor or routine changes are not appreciable improvements.
Scientific or technological uncertainty is defined at paras 13 and 14 which state:
“Scientific or technological uncertainty exists when knowledge of whether something is scientifically possible or technologically feasible, or how to achieve it in practice, is not readily available or deducible by a competent professional working in the field. This includes system uncertainty. Scientific or technological uncertainty will often arise from turning something that has already been established as scientifically feasible into a cost-effective, reliable, and reproducible process, material, device, product, or service.”
“Uncertainties that can readily be resolved by a competent professional working in the field are not scientific or technological uncertainties. Similarly, improvements, optimisations and fine-tuning which do not materially affect the underlying science or technology do not constitute work to resolve scientific or technological uncertainty.”
The term “competent professional” used in the Guidelines is not defined in them. In Flame Tree Publishing v HMRC[2024] UKFTT 349 (TC), the tribunal stated that, as HMRC submitted the meaning of competent professional:
“…is self-explanatory and that it goes beyond having an intelligent interest in the field…to be accepted as a competent professional, an individual would need to be able to demonstrate appropriate qualifications, experience and up-to-date knowledge of the relevant scientific and technological principles involved.”
In Gripple Ltd v HMRC [2010] EWHC 1609 (“Gripple”), at [12], the High Court outlined the proper approach to the previous version of the current Guidelines.
“I would, however, make the general point that the provisions form a detailed and meticulously drafted code, with a series of defined terms and composite expressions, and a large number of carefully delineated conditions, all of which have to be satisfied if the relief is to be available. The Schedule runs to 26 paragraphs, and occupies ten pages in Tolley’s Yellow Tax Handbook for 2005/06. I emphasise this point because one of Mr Gordon’s submissions for Gripple is that the Schedule evinces a general intention to provide enhanced relief for expenditure on R & D, and that a generous construction should where possible be adopted in order to further that general aim. I am unable to accept this submission. It seems to me, on the contrary, that a detailed and prescriptive code of this nature leaves little room for a purposive construction, and there is no substitute for going through the detailed conditions, one by one, to see if, on a fair reading, they are satisfied. It also needs to be remembered, in this context, that the relief is a generous one, which grants a deduction for notional expenditure which has not actually been incurred. Even if the relief is not available, there will be nothing to prevent the company from deducting its actual R&D expenditure in full in the computation of its trading profits, provided only that the normal ‘wholly and exclusively’ test is satisfied”
There was no dispute that metallurgy is a field of science “built on atomic, chemical, and physical principles”. In short, HMRC’s view is that the appellant’s work, as carried out in the relevant periods, does not advance metallurgy, but instead education and so does not qualify as R&D within the meaning of the Guidelines. The appellant’s detailed submissions are set out below. HMRC further contend that, if that is not correct, the burden is on the appellant to show that the costs claimed are attributable to relevant R&D but the appellant has failed to do so.
For all the reasons set out below, we have concluded that the appellant’s activities in the relevant periods did not constitute R&D within the meaning of the Guidelines. Therefore, we have not found it necessary to consider the costs in question.
Evidence and facts
We have found the facts on the basis of the documents in the bundles and the evidence of Mr Brown and Mr Mike Bacon who were cross-examined at the hearing. We found them both to be honest and credible and plainly passionate about the teaching of metallurgy.
The appellant stated that there has not been a single educational institution in the UK since 2016 that offers formal qualifications in metallurgical and material science at pre-university level, with also part-time and remote learning options.
The appellant was incorporated in 2015 after the closure of the metallurgy and materials department at Bradford University with Mr Brown as its managing director. Mr Brown set the appellant up to continue with his passion for educating part time students who spend time in a work place in this field. The appellant offers training and practical sessions in this field of a type which during the relevant periods were not available elsewhere in the UK. There has not been a single educational institution in the UK since 2016 that offers formal qualifications in metallurgical and material science at pre-university level, with also part-time and remote learning options. Students who take part in the appellant’s courses can gain an industry recognised qualification. The appellant sometimes acts in partnership with others such as the University of Wolverhampton via the Institute of Cast Metal Engineers which allows it to offer practical training within an industry leading controlled and safe environment. This takes place either by limited face to face learning or via online webinars that are followed up by an e-learning project using the appellant’s innovative Moodle platform.
In a report produced for the appellant, the relevant activity which it is asserted constitutes R&D within the meaning of the Guidelines is identified as the development of an e-learning platform via Moodle and the factors highlighted include the following:
The Moodle based learning is intended to provide students with lifelong professional development skills offering practical and knowledge based learning which is designed and presented by academics and leaders from the metallurgical sciences, castings and fabrications industries.
It was put in place from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2021.
Since 2016 no other college or university has offered formal qualifications in this field.
The online learning platform contains all the required course materials, research papers and resources and a hub to liaise with an academic tutor. It allows students to follow the course at their own pace within the set parameters of semester schedules.
Other e-learning portals allow learning specific parts of metallurgy and material sciences. No other platform enables students to complete a part time work based level 3 qualification with both academic knowledge and practical application elements. A level 3 qualification is equivalent to a GCSE.
There is a knowledge and skills gap in this field which employers are seeking to fill. Hence the appellant has written collaborative work based curriculums for qualifications from level 3 to level 7 (Chartered Engineer/Master’s Degree) for part time students and their employers.
The e-learning platform is easily accessible and affordable and available to all who wish to obtain the relevant skills.
The main objective is to keep the subject alive, by supporting employers to retain their key employees with courses designed for those already working who wish to formalise their knowledge and experience with a qualification, further their understanding of specific areas or gain a general overview of the subject after focussing in their career on a specific area.
The employer is involved at every stage of the process by appointing an industry mentor to help coach and guide the student through the course. Via consultancy from an independently appointed advisory board of industry experts the appellant has access to a wealth of knowledge and advice from its stakeholders include the UK Engineering Council and the World Foundry Organisation and former students, clients/employers and industry mentors to help direct the courses and their content to ensure they are relevant, up to date and operate at the correct levels for the abilities of the students. This further ensures that the appellant fulfils its promises to the students and its overall mission statement.
Mr Brown has been educating people within the materials and manufacturing engineering industry for 50 years. He is an experienced metallurgist and has been working in the adult, YTS Further and Higher Education sectors for over 35 years.
The programmes are designed to meet the academic rigour of the Quality Assurance Agency and the accreditation requirements of the Engineering Council to enable students to obtain professional qualifications. The appellant considers it operates above and beyond the industry standard to provide qualifications that are industry recognised and enable students to progress their careers, seek new opportunities and earn higher salaries.
Each module descriptor is researched and produced in-house by Ms Kathryn Brooke and her team of administrators before being passed to Mr Brown, the academics and the advisory board for rigorous review and sign-off process.
Using Moodle as an open-sourced platform has enabled Mr Brown to retain ownership of the intellectual property and copyright to the course learning materials stored on the platform. Mr Brown and the other academics operate a continual actioned research process as they ask students past and present to monitor and moderate the courses’ content and relevance to its learning objectives. Ms Brooke’s team also monitor and moderate the courses. At the time of the report only the level 3 qualification in metallurgy was Ofqual ready and was unregulated because it was yet to be reviewed and authorised by Ofqual as a regulated qualification.
On the basis of the evidence from the witnesses and in the bundles, we accept the following:
Metallurgy is a domain of materials science and materials engineering that studies the physical and chemical behaviour of metallic elements and their alloys. Metallurgy concerns the chemical, physical, and atomic properties and structures of metals and the principles whereby metals are combined to form alloys. Metallurgy is used to separate metals from their ore.
The appellant has created innovative educational content and experiences such as web seminars, practical lectures, and hands-on training in metallography, which is designed to bring up-to-date metallurgical understanding and skills to the manufacturing engineering sector. The information delivered through the appellant’s educational programs constitutes scientific and technological content.
The appellant aims to fill a knowledge and skills gap in metallurgical science by providing education and professional development opportunities of a type which were not available elsewhere in the UK.
The appellant uses innovative methods to create, manipulate, and transfer this content and uses practical applications in its Metallography Lab, where theory is applied to real-world materials. The appellant has developed unique courses such as on the introduction to metallurgy knowledge through materials and metallurgical science to meet knowledge gaps in manufacturing engineering such as, as regards the effects of cooling and solidification on chemical composition and grain structures using the appellant’s own samples and data. The appellant’s innovation in teaching is also shown by the fact that it has created metallurgical microsections and converted them into ePhotographs for educational use.
In creating these courses the appellant has engaged with manufacturing engineering professionals to determine the specific needs of the industry. By employing “action research” the appellant has created strategies that address these needs and developed new methodologies, which constitutes an advancement in metallurgical education and practice. Action research is an applied research approach, which aims at combining scientific rigour with practical relevance. It can help to overcome so-called “so what” research findings that do not show relevance or a clear implication to practice (Flyvbjerg and Sampson, 2011, p. 132f). It involves a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a “community of practice”. The appellant has created opportunities by action research and engagement to find out what is required, and putting these ideas and concepts into outcomes.
The appellant’s project has made metallurgical science accessible to a broader audience, regardless of location. This allows for a wider and more diverse pool of talent to enter and enrich the sector. By introducing new knowledge and practices through courses which incorporate the latest advancements in materials science and metallurgical theory, the appellant has contributed to the continuous professional development of individuals in the field.
There is evidence of the appellant’s impact on the field from course review forms from ECMS and feedback from individuals who have participated in courses.
Endorsements from professional bodies such as IoM3, ICME, the Foundry Training Trust, BINDT, and experts such as Professor John Campbell show that the appellant’s offerings are recognized as valuable and innovative within the professional community.
Feedback from industry mentors and professionals who have applied the appellant’s training in their work settings shows the practical impact of the appellant’s training on professional practices in the metallurgy sector.
The appellant produced a spreadsheet from 2020 in which stakeholders give detailed reasons on why metallurgy is important to their industrial sector which highlight the vital role and wide-ranging impact of metallurgy across different fields. The appellant summarised these responses as follows:
“1. Broad Impact on Economy and Design: Metallurgy impacts all areas of life, with metals being integral to the design and manufacture of various products. It underpins much of the economy, emphasising the need for trained professionals in metallurgy.
2. Casting and Alloy Selection: In casting, a deep understanding of metals and alloys is crucial for producing components to specification. This includes processes from alloy selection and design to melting, treatment, casting, heat treatment, testing, and quality assurance.
3. Core Skill in Iron Foundry: Metallurgy is considered a fundamental skill in iron foundries to meet technical requirements and comply with national and international material specifications.
4. Foundry Sector: Metallurgy is an integral part, especially in foundries, indicating its critical role in the sector.
5. Chemical and Process Engineering: Engineers in these fields need metallurgy knowledge, particularly regarding corrosion, corrosion mechanisms, and non-destructive testing. This shows an overlap in the required expertise.
6. Heat Treatment Services: The heat treatment industry is entirely based on metallurgical principles, emphasising the control of changes to material structures and properties.
7. Development of Metals and Casting Alloys: The castings sector relies on metallurgists for the development of metals and casting alloys, highlighting their importance in innovation and production quality.
8. Manufacturing Process: Metallurgists are vital in the manufacturing process for castings, stressing their role in ensuring product quality and consistency.
9. Wire and Cable Industry: Understanding the physical and chemical behaviour of metallic elements is critical to the wire and cable industry, affecting product safety, efficiency, and effectiveness.”
The appellant seeks to extend overall knowledge or capability in a field of metallurgical science by providing web, face to face lectures and practical activities, creating opportunities which embrace diversity and equality across the UK. It embraces innovative updated or new knowledge, encourages lifelong learning and the acquisition of knowledge and skills and supports professional development in a way that is not provided elsewhere. The appellant also addresses skills and knowledge gaps by communication and metallurgical debate and by creating education and training opportunities for persons with no formal education and training.
The appellant’s activities integrate knowledge from different fields and of knowledge and skills into the workplace such as maths into the workplace accuracy of thermocouples and new methods in casting processes, and the measurement of failed products after use (heat treatment of aerospace materials and defects classification in wire drawing and quality identification on cold forming).
The development of course materials, the use of specialised equipment for teaching, and the training of instructors on novel teaching methodologies are supporting activities which the appellant undertakes in relation to the conceptualization and development of new teaching methodologies for implementation.
The appellant’s creation of educational content and experiences as set out above, has introduced new knowledge and skills in the industry which extends overall knowledge and capability in metallurgy in industry. These advancements may lead to outcomes in industry such as improved processes in metal manufacturing or cost reductions for a business/sector due to a better understanding of materials. The appellant’s project aims to extend overall knowledge in metallurgy, create new processes, and make appreciable improvements to existing methods. The appellant has promoted diversity and equality in the UK by making metallurgical science accessible to a broader audience, regardless of location. This allows for a wider and more diverse pool of talent to enter and enrich the sector. By introducing new knowledge and practices through its courses, which incorporate the latest advancements in materials, science and metallurgical theory, the appellant has contributed to the continuous professional development of individuals in the field.
The appellant plans and manages these educational projects, by defining objectives, estimating resources, and organising work, which shows a systematic approach.
Moodle is a delivery system of open-source software. The appellant’s online virtual support system based upon the Moodle open-source platform is an interactive educational resource that supports the students’ learning experience (as set out above). Also it incorporates the development of updated processes for the science of metallurgywithin a fully dedicated course and range of programmes for students and employers who are geographically distributed though the UK. That requires a 21st century delivery system which is flexible, distance, remote eLearning and enables advancements in metallurgy that currently does not exist in further education. This eLearning delivery system allows 24/7 access, is paperless and is an effective method of communication and allows students and industrial mentors access. It is linked to zoom video conferencing. Moodle was populated by the appellant and it designed its own criteria with “Teaching Learning and Assessment pedagogy”, with resources to support part time students and employers, which was identified by research and development by action research modelling used in engineering. The aim is to (a) extend overall knowledge of science and capacity in a field of science (b) create a service which incorporates an increase in overall knowledge or capability in the field of science. Metallurgy concerns itself with the atom – its structure, properties, and performance of metals and alloys, and has profound industrial applications, particularly in manufacturing and engineering.
The appellant has consistently demonstrated a high level of professional competence in its curriculum development, which is firmly based on scientifically rigorous engineering principles. The curriculum was developed by a team of highly qualified professionals, each with substantial industrial experience and memberships in relevant engineering institutions. This initiative was not a mere academic exercise but a comprehensive, applied approach that addressed the unique needs of part-time students pursuing careers in metallurgy and manufacturing engineering. The R&D project specifically focused on creating educational opportunities within the field of metallurgy at level 3—a level where this specialized knowledge is not typically available to part-time students in the UK.It was designed to meet the demands of the industry, ensuring that students could apply academic knowledge in practical work environments through industrial mentorship
The appellant has embraced a programme of education training and practical skills developments. The appellant’s process provides a methodology which is built around facts and data, and its interpretation embraces the 19 stages in metallurgical investigation technique. This reinforces the academic knowledge with “Mini Work Based Projects” and related activities, which included the assessment of the performance of the part time student. This concept is maximised by development of a unique innovative advance in metallurgy by the inclusion of industrial mentor training and assessment. These activities and programmes were (still are), the appellant’s interpretation of innovative applications of metallurgy within education which align competence in the workplace to academic knowledge by linking to for example “EngTec” one of the three grades of professional Engineer built on knowledge and competence. As set out above, the appellant has access to a wealth of knowledge and advice from its stakeholders.
These activities are innovative applications of metallurgy within educational contexts, recognized by and designed to meet the standards of professional engineering bodies, such as the Engineering Council. Learning is about teaching, but it is also about reflection and reviewing scientific principles and the effect of the atom. The curriculum and other opportunities including practical activities is a unique concept developed by the appellant.
Ms Kathryn Brooke’s involvement is (a) in planning by defining objectives, assessing feasibility, identifying uncertainties, and estimating resources, and (b) the production of web seminars and the compilation of research and evidence related to metallurgy. She inputs into content creation for practical metallography courses, including the use of metallurgical microsections and e-Photographs, which adds depth to the learning materials and creating new teaching methodologies. Her colleague, Ms Crysta Haigh, works in planning and organising, especially managing learning and coordination with stakeholder groups. She has a role in identifying and communicating with organisations to promote and develop metallurgy further which supports the creation and dissemination of advanced knowledge in metallurgy. Her efforts in designing and delivering metallurgical courses and seminars address the knowledge and skills gap.
The appellant provided an overview of its courses as follows:
“1. 3-Day Practical Metallography Workshop: A comprehensive workshop focusing on practical metallography techniques.
2. Introduction to Practical Metallography Workshop: A course designed for beginners to introduce them to the basics of practical metallography.
3. Metallurgical Investigation and Failure Analysis Webinar: A webinar on the methodologies and techniques used in metallurgical investigation and failure analysis.
4. Metallurgical Investigation and Failure Analysis - Web Training: Web-based training focusing on failure analysis and investigative techniques in metallurgy.
5. 2-Day Workshop - Introduction to Practical Metallography and Introduction to Heat Treatment: Anneal & Normalise: A workshop covering the basics of practical metallography and the fundamentals of heat treatment processes like annealing and normalizing.
6. Lecture - How Carbon and Heat Treatment Affect Metallography and Mechanical Properties of Steel: A lecture discussing the effects of carbon content and heat treatment on the metallography and mechanical properties of steel.
7. Carbon Content on Steel 1: TED Normalising and Annealing - Web Training: Web training focused on the impact of carbon content on steel, specifically through normalising and annealing processes.
8. 4-Day Metallurgical Investigations Technique Workshop: An extensive workshop on techniques used in metallurgical investigations.
9. 3-Day Workshop - Introduction to Practical Metallography Including Introduction to Heat Treatment - Anneal & Normalise and Quenching & Tempering: A workshop combining practical metallography with an introduction to various heat treatment processes.
10. Process of Solidification and its Relationship to Phase Diagrams - Web Training: Web training on understanding the process of solidification in metals and its correlation with phase diagrams.
11. 1 Day Introduction to Practical Metallography - Workshop: A one-day workshop offering an introduction to the field of practical metallography.”
The appellant summarised the feedback received by course participants on the challenges they faced as follows:
“1. Lab Environment and Material Preparation: Participants found being exposed to a new lab environment and understanding material preparation of less common materials challenging.
2. Phase Diagrams and Microstructure: Some participants struggled with understanding how phase diagrams relate to the microstructure visible on samples.
3. Technical Terminology: Getting a grasp around technical terminology was a challenge.
4. Understanding Observations: Understanding what was being observed proved difficult for some.
5. Macroscopic Examination: One participant specifically mentioned macroscopic examination as a challenge.
6. Thought Process and Investigation Sequence: The process of demonstrating thought, investigation sequence, and techniques needed for comprehensive report completion was challenging.
7. Use of Terms: Making sure of properly understanding and using terms correctly while discussing materials and explaining findings was mentioned.
8. Thermal Equilibrium Diagram: For beginners, understanding the Thermal Equilibrium Diagram posed a challenge.
9. Identifying Structures: Identifying structures, especially when they looked different from what participants were used to, was a difficulty.
10. Atomic Structure Influence: Understanding how atomic structure influences what is seen under the microscope was mentioned as a challenge.
11. Working with Rolled Product: Specific mention of challenges associated with working with rolled products.
“12. Reverse Diagrams: Understanding reverse diagrams was found challenging.
13. Dendrites and Crystal Grains: Understanding dendrites and crystal grains of metals was a specific challenge mentioned.”
The appellant provided two “case studies” to provide more detailed insights into the curriculum development, focusing on practical metallography, metallurgical investigation techniques, and failure analysis:
“Case Study 1: Introduction to Practical Metallography
Overview: This case study covers the introduction to practical metallography with a focus on eutectic transformations (liquid to liquid two-phase transformations) and their effects on the solidification, cooling, and chemical composition of metals and alloys. The program includes web seminars and lectures on various topics, including eutectoids in ferrous and non-ferrous metals, alloy development, and the effects of hot and cold working on metals.
Innovative Aspects:
• Customised Teaching Material: M&C developed its own aims, objectives, and presentation styles, tailoring the content to address specific industry needs.
• Practical Application: The creation of M&C metallurgical microsections and the conversion of these into ePhotographs for teaching demonstrate an innovative approach to delivering practical, hands-on learning experiences.
• Engagement and Evaluation: The use of Zoom video conferences for teaching and ECMS (Engineering & Computing Midlands Science) evaluation forms for feedback highlight M&C's commitment to engaging learners and assessing the impact of their training.
Case Study 2: Metallurgical Investigation Techniques and Failure Analysis Overview: This course is structured around a four-day program divided into two segments, separated by a two-week gap. It emphasises practical investigations, visual examinations, hardness testing, non-destructive testing (NDT), and the use of metallographic techniques. A unique aspect is the "bring your own material" component, allowing participants to apply learned techniques to real-world materials from their workplaces.
Key Components:
• Practical Investigations: The focus on using established metallurgical investigation techniques to identify modes of failure and evaluate "fit for purpose" criteria addresses the critical need for practical skills in the industry.
Equipment and Technique Utilisation: Detailed instruction on using metallurgical lab equipment, including preparation of macro and micro sections, offers participants hands-on experience that is directly transferable to their professional roles.
• Applied Learning: The course's structure, which includes a project-based approach with personal material, encourages the application of new skills to solve actual workplace metallurgical issues.”
The appellant gave further details of the first “case study” as follows:
“Case study 1 - Introduction to Practical Metallography: Eutectic ( liquid to liquid transformations - two phase )
- Effects of solidification on cooling and how it effects the chemical composition of metals and alloys. (On a range of ferrous and nonferrous metal and alloys).
M&C claim for advances is based on. First web seminar and lecture in a series of learning including later.
Eutectoids (solid to solid transformation)
Eutectoids (Non-Ferrous)
Eutectoids (Ferrous)
Alloys development
Effects of Hot and Cold working – nonferrous and Ferrous)
Effects of Heat treatment”
The appellant said that for this course (1) the appellant “created its own Aims and Objectives (Introduction to Practical Metallography: Eutectic (liquid to liquid transformations - two phase )” and its own presentation style, (2) the appellant created the teaching and learning and used existing scientific principles to do so, (3) it used “thermal equilibrium diagrams and “ tie diagrams” and created its own “Metallurgical Microsections” and converted them into e-photographs and created “the macro and microsections in directions – longitudinal and transfers”, (4) the course was supported by Zoom video conference call, and (5) there was evaluation by ECMS and the appellant’s evaluation forms.
The appellant gave the following further details of the second “case study”:
“Metallurgical Investigation Techniques and Failure Analysis :
Two days metallurgical theory and practical “hands on”
Two-week gap
Two days - “Bring your own material”
Course Content
What you will learn from this course will be transferable into your workplace.
Project Aim: Over the 2-day course you will gain Metallography skillset to aid your metallurgical knowledge and practical application skills.
You will:
• Undertake practical investigations, using established metallurgical investigation techniques on metals and their alloys and identify the modes of failure and "fit for purpose" agenda.
• Evaluate the theory and conduct visual examinations, building up evidence and record keeping, along with the use of NDT and hardness testing.
• Demonstrate how to investigate a fracture examination with identification of key features.
• Apply your skills to conduct macro and micro examinations, using a range of metallographic techniques, including preparation of macro and micro sections.
• Distinguish the different process routes to examine metals and alloys used in manufacturing engineering and how this effects Metallography.
• Evaluate the theory and conduct visual examinations, building up evidence and record keeping, along with the use of NDT and hardness testing.to determine its "fit for purpose" application or likely modes of failure in production.
Key Learning Objectives
Course Objective: You will examine sample metals to evaluate the performance under different conditions.
• Improve your practical skills to evaluate various metal investigation techniques.
• Use the metallurgical lab's equipment to collate your evidence. Review and categorise various metals.
• Carry out macro and micro examinations using various techniques.
• Carry out examinations and analyse your recorded findings.
• Analyse your findings and report on the conclusion and recommendations.
• Prepare a short verbal presentation on your findings and recommendations.
Day 1 - MIT including Metallography.
• Equipment, metal, and alloy sample demonstration
• Q&A's
• Visual Examination, record keeping and data collection.
• Hardness testing
• Non-destructive testing
• Fracture
• Macro examinations
• Unetched and etched conditions
• Q&A's
Day 2 - MIT including Metallography.
• Team discussions/team working.
• Macro/micro examinations and Q&A
• Plan for Day 3 and 4
Course Content
What you will learn from this course will be transferable into your workplace as the third day and fourth day is "bring your own sample material" building on what you have learnt from the first two days.
Project Aim: Over this 4-day course you will gain Metallography skillset to aid your metallurgical knowledge and practical application skills from Day 1 through to Day 4.
You will:
• Undertake practical investigations, using established metallurgical investigation techniques on metals and their alloys and identify the modes of failure and fatigue. Evaluate the theory and conduct visual examinations, building up evidence and record keeping, along with the use of NDT and hardness testing to determine its "fit for purpose" application or modes of failure in production.
• Demonstrate how to investigate a fracture examination with identification of key features.
• Apply your skills to conduct macro and micro examinations, using a range of metallographic techniques, including preparation of macro and micro sections.
• Distinguish the different process routes to examine metals and alloys used in manufacturing engineering and how this effects Metallography.
Key Learning Objectives
Course Objective: You will examine sample metals to evaluate the performance under different conditions.
• Improve your practical skills to evaluate various metal investigation techniques.
• Use the metallurgical lab's equipment to collate your evidence.
• Review and categorise various metals.
• Carry out macro and micro examinations using various techniques.
• Carry out examinations and analyse your recorded findings.
• Analyse your findings and report on the conclusion and recommendations
Day 1 - MIT including Metallography.
• Equipment, metal, and alloy sample demonstration
• Q&A's
• Visual Examination, record keeping and data collection.
• Hardness testing
• Non-destructive testing
• Fracture
• Macro examinations
• Unetched and etched conditions
• Q&A's
Day 2 - MIT including Metallography.
• Team discussions/team working.
• Macro/micro examinations and Q&A
• Plan for Day 3 and 4
Practical Metallography Mini Work-Base Project (PMMWBP) on own sample material
• Q&A
Two Week Gap Activity
• Week 1 - Conference call discussions with the Tutor regarding the PMMWBP and your sample considerations.
• Week 2 - Providing outline brief of the PMMWMP before Day 3 & 4 for feedback.
Day 3 - Bring your own sample.
Producing aims, objectives input and project outcomes
This allows advancement will require to be investigating new learning and enabling to advance metallurgical issues for their workplace.
• Team discussions on your investigation methods
Present to the group your considered action plan.
• Practical Metallography Investigations
Day 4 - Continuing from Day 3
• Practical Metallography Investigations
• Give a verbal presentation to the group.
Present to the group your considered action plan.
• Practical Metallography Investigations.
Mr Mike Bacon gave the following evidence:
He has 50 years of experience in the field of metallurgy, predominantly, cast metals covering a wide range of roles, including Laboratory Investigator, Method Engineering, Corporate metallurgist, Company Auditor and Engineering Design. He is a retired professional member of the Cast Metals Institute and has practiced a teachers role, largely since retiring from full time employment in around 2016. He volunteered his services to the Institute of Metals Engineers to set up the University Foundry and Pattern shop and developed/delivered level 3 coursework. He worked with Mr Colin Whorton to develop and deliver short courses after this level 3 course was discontinued and came into contact with the appellant also delivering metallurgical coursework.
Course work was developed from his experience with a capability to apply scientific principles to practical applications, creating advancements in process metallurgy.
He has contributed to advances in metallurgical sciences, in one of the modules of industrial alloys, by constructing new innovative, metallurgical advancements by identifying the effects of chemical composition and cooling rates in the manufacture of Grey and Cast White Irons. This has been developed by using e-microphotographs and relating these to actual metallographic structures, under specified process parameters.
He also aided the development of practical and theoretical metallurgical investigation techniques, which is identified as the second “case study” above. This included undertaking feasibility studies built upon engagement with industrial communities, to provide and create more beneficial outcomes for a student and their employer who lack the metallurgical science skills. This was with reference to a company producing a new aluminium material produced by continuous casting. Uncertainties were minimized by engagement with the casting sector and by extending into a second day of exploring their own material. Histeaching experience with the university along with his own industrial experience, enabled him to transfer knowledge and skills into the process.
The detailed capture of the case studies contributed to new lines of investigation built upon scientific principles, enabling him to contribute and create input into the 19 stages of metallurgical investigation techniques. This was originally a web based seminar, which was developed into a one day course into which he contributed. The company involved was having challenges in the interpretation of failures. This 19 stage course was delivered in-house using the company’s own lines of enquiry which highlighted the lack of metallurgical knowledge and application into their workplace activities.
Since his involvement with the University and the appellant, he has not come across students who have undertaken an appropriate course in metallurgy which embraces casting, mechanical deformation of metals, heat treatment and mechanical testing of metals, where structure and properties are linked together.
He has aided curriculum development in a wide number of metallurgy based subjects which relate to manufacturing engineering such as Carbon Steels1 & 2, heat treatment of ferrous material, referencing ASTM and industrial standards using researching skills and application of the role of atomic structures.
Within the casting sector, the need for record keeping, data collection and information supports the integrated use of mathematics which he believes is a factor missing in industrial sectors
The appellant provided written comments it had received from three industry experts in response to questions it asked which it considered supports its case. The first question put to Mr Colin Whorton Prof MICME EngTech - National Foundry Training Centre Manager was:
“Has M&C created advancements by providing definitive evidence of genuine scientific uncertainties and the noteworthy advancements in metallurgical science that occurred during the claim periods? These uncertainties must be linked to the underlying science of the field and the company must demonstrate advancements to the field of science and not the company or trade sectors. Minimised the degree of uncertainties by engagement in Manufacturing Engineering about the growing and increasing lack of opportunities in metallurgy, knowledge and skills due to the widening age agenda by competent professionals working in the field.”
Mr Whorton replied that in his time as an employee of the University of Wolverhampton (Business Development Manager) and with 30 years’ experience in the engineering sector he has seen a huge lack of provision for the support of metallurgy training and experience in the workplace. In 2019 he first joined the University due to the lack of training in the sector and:
“At the time, there was an annual demand for 124,000 engineers and technicians with core engineering skills across the economy, alongside an additional requirement for 79,000 ‘related’ roles requiring a mixed application of engineering knowledge and skill alongside other skill sets. Also, a shortfall of between 37,000 and 59,000 in meeting the annual demand for core engineering roles requiring level 3+ skills and with job openings in engineering representing 17.1% of all vacancies (2.5 million), with just under 10% of these expected to be from expansion demand. The age demographic is also pushing the demand for new personnel….this highlights the growing need for training new metallurgists, technicians, and engineers. As lead technician of the metallurgy laboratory, he has seen a quite substantial number of learners sent from businesses requiring training for even the most basic elements of metallurgy. If these key issues are not directly addressed, the UK’s engineering sector will be negatively impacted immensely. The offering by M+C is currently unique in the industrial and educational sectors and vital to both to combat these issues.”
The second question posed to Mr Whorton was:
“How M&C have by effective engagement, built of scientific principles, advances in metallurgy to meet current lack of opportunities which exist and identified a range of provision and by consultation in metallurgy that do not exist - now - but have demonstrated how to achieve it in practice a range of provision embracing equal opportunities, equality of opportunity not due to geographic location of demand in the form of Web seminars, practical lecture with hands on and metallurgical theory and actual practical application skills in an Industrial Metallurgy lab at University of Wolverhampton Metallography.”
Mr Whorton’s response to the second question is as follows:
“Metallurgy research is a valued field that continually pushes the boundaries of opportunity. Metallurgical engineers engage in groundbreaking research to understand the properties and behaviour of materials at the atomic and molecular levels. By conducting practical experiments, theory, and analysis, this is a contribution to the development of advanced metals and the provision of unlocking new applications.
The demand for metallurgical engineers is projected to grow by 5% in the coming years. With advancements in technology and increasing industrial requirements, skilled metallurgical engineers are in high demand.
The work that M+C, in conjunction with the University of Wolverhampton, are conducting really focuses on the lack of opportunities in the industry. This is advancing metallurgy through new innovative techniques that is explored through both onsite practical training, through online seminars and blended learning. M+C provides a thorough knowledge exchange competence by identifying the specific areas of failings within both businesses and the overall sector by upskilling employees through technical presentations, seminars, practical experiences, and specialist consultancies. Education and opportunity, such as this, has not been available in the UK for over 25 years, which the effects of this are widely felt. I believe that the products and services, offered by M+C have increased the capabilities within the casting sector for metallurgy - by providing opportunities and answers that previously did not exist. This metallurgy knowledge and skills are vital to minimising metallurgical problems on solidification and in subsequent heat treatment in carbon steels.”
The third question was:
“Has M&C made advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science, includes the adaptation of knowledge or capability from another field of Material Science, physics and chemistry along with mathematics in order to make such an advance where this adaptation was not readily deducible, or did not exist and have created new knowledge as a process, service or requirements?”
Mr Whorton replied as follows:
“In my view M+C have fully contributed to the advancements of metallurgical science within businesses. As Senior Vice President of the Institute of Cast Metals Engineers, I have seen the impact of little to no knowledge of metallurgy and the affects thereof. Businesses are outsourcing work to fewer and fewer outlets, failures of castings are rising and longevity of life of castings are falling due to issues with metallurgy, the difficulty to attract new business or new employees to the sector suffering because of the lack of training opportunities. In essence, the addressing of the stagnation of innovation and opportunity within the metallurgy science is the prerogative of M+C. The uncertainties of offering Metallurgy in the form of Metallography and Metallurgical investigation techniques - have been reduced by effective engagement and which has been a positive new outcome - not seen in my experience, and this is shown by every feedback form completed by the learner, and by their employers.”
Finally the appellant asked this fourth question:
“M&C have provided a summary of the criteria in some case studies, but would you like to express any other issues about what you have observed, in any capacity, or your input in your own ideas and concepts as competent professional to remove the uncertainties that exist, may be by the scientific Acton Research methods which its self as a research strategy builds on uncertainties by using, facts, data and information accepting that this method does not reject anything.”
Mr Whorton replied:
“For the past 4 years the University of Wolverhampton has jointly promoted with M+C the need for metallurgy training within the industry and have witnessed the impact of no provision of this science. M+C metallurgy knowledge and practical application is not currently available within UK. In my opinion, M+C needs further support in this radical and innovative approach to expand greater networking and modernisation techniques and prospective knowledge to the industry.
The appellant asked the same questions of Mr Martin Durkan - Managing Director of Paint Inspections Limited, Certified Level 3 Instructor, member of Industrial Employers Advisory Board.
Mr Durkan replied to the first question as follows:
“As someone who visits a different company every week in the aerospace metallurgy sector and gets to audit training, I am perhaps very qualified to answer the questions. I have audited training in many countries including China, Russia, south Africa, Morocco, Brazil, USA, India, Poland, Hungary, Sweden, France, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico and most of Europe.
The UK in general is falling behind many countries….
The new apprentice systems can be good general courses that develop teenagers, but none provide the deep technical metallurgy training that is required for hi tech engineering. The answer at the moment is companies find staff from overseas or do without the qualified staff that they require. I see companies hiring staff from China, Poland or Turkey most frequently. It generally is getting harder to recruit good, qualified staff. As a country you could argue that we don't need a good aerospace, defence, and engineering sector. I see very few new UK metallurgists and yet it’s a requirement in the manufacturing standards.
I am a member of IEAB, and this has enabled myself to have input and into what M&C have produced, I feel that the metallurgical opportunities that have created by engagement have removed the issues that what has been produced does meet the requirement of industry as it does
The issue of lack of metallurgy and creating, new methods of presentation, building on key metallurgical science issues has created new and learning which is advancing metallurgy knowledge and applications skills which case study one shows key features of solidification and how phase diagrams are changed effects the structure, interesting this shows the formation of dendrites”,
Mr Durkan said this as regards the second question:
“M&C will provide tailored training to advance peoples understanding in the field of metallurgy. About 8 years ago I was a quality manager for an international casting company creating parts for the Aerospace and gas turbine markets. The metallurgist working for me was Chinese, mainly due to lack of local talent. We did spend quite a bit of time trying to find training in metallurgy but at the time failed. However, as I left, we sent a student to M&C to train in aspects of casting. There are almost no training opportunities in the UK.
I remember when I was a quality manager in a metallurgy company in Cambridge during the 2000`s I wanted metallurgy training for my staff but nothing other than a full-time degree. When I left one of my comments was that there was no other technically qualified staff left. Sad to say the company is now shut.
The area of Metallography and offering metallurgical investigation techniques in a Metallurgical Lab at University of Wolverhampton to my experience, new innovative and combines metallurgy theory with hands on opportunities in record keeping and preparation of microsection setting off with visual examination.
M&C working with ECMS has opened up a fantastic new range of metals and alloys that the students will not have experienced.
The second pair of days brings your own material, then allows a more personalised approach to application of metallurgy and investigation. believe that effective relationship is unique and creates an advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of metallurgical science, which is creative and new meeting the needs of industry that is not offered elsewhere in the UK.”
As regards question 3, Mr Durkan’s response was as follows:
“M&C are trying to support manufacturing in the UK. That manufacturing may be in aid of automotive, aerospace, defence, health or energy sectors. These sectors provide the critical infrastructure to the UK. By providing training and understanding in the courses they help to protect that critical infrastructure.
M&C have created a considerable number of learning opportunities from web based, one day lectures including a practical hand, with the actual delivery in a metallurgy lab
This approach embraces diverse manufacturing engineering, it repurposed scientific knowledge but reformatted to hit a new range of knowledge requirements, allowing for companies that are spread across the UK at cost which also includes the factor of time out of work.”
As regards question 4:
“With many things in life - things will die if there is inadequate support and use. With training comes understanding of what you don't know as well as what you do know.
Coming in the next 10 years is an unprecedented skills shortage in the aerospace industry not just at contractor level but also at prime contractor levels. The last few years has encouraged a large amount of people to leave the labour market. Many of the people that left were experienced, qualified older staff and already we are seeing companies hiring staff because they are available and healthy rather than qualified and trained. Unfortunately, in the UK there is almost no-one providing metallurgy skills training.
M&C should in some ways be hijacked by the government expanded and protected with the intention of bridging that skills gap. The training needs to become bigger and rolling out.
To be honest as I travel round, I feel quite bad that the UK is sleepwalking into losing its High tech engineering sector. Sites oversees often having much higher investment in staff, training and machinery.
I fully support M&C in all aspects to redress this and believe that this opportunity is not lost to the UK, as it’s the only one we have .
The uncertainties are removed by engagement and consultation by a person who is a competent professional in the field of metallurgy.”
Finally the appellant asked the same questions of Mr Steve Chambers FdEng MInstNDT, General Manager at Morgan-Ward (NDT).
As regards question 1, Mr Chambers said this:
“Working in the field of Heat Treatment, Metal Joining and Non-destructive testing for over 20 years I have seen a significant decline in the metallurgical competency here in the UK which is a huge concern. As a subcontractor we are seen as the experts in our field by clients around the world who look to the 3rd party special treatment providers to advise and support, including when treatments do not have the expected response. The first question that gets asked when something goes wrong is ‘why?’, without the metallurgical knowledge we cannot confidently answer this question on behalf of the client adding no value to the support offered. Aside from any qualifications, there are no companies to my knowledge offering the practical, vocational training and skills required to support engineering in the UK. The age demographic is worryingly high in the field of Metallurgy with a real danger that skills will be lost without companies like M&C’s support. Textbooks will give the answers needed to problems but only if the underpinning knowledge is there to interpret what’s written in a practical way something which M&C are providing. Its vitally important we give companies the correct resources to add value to their clients, if not we cease to be relevant and moreover, we’re in danger of given advice with no confidence. I am currently General Manager for a very well-established market leader providing Aviation non-destructive testing to some of the world biggest airlines, an elected member of the BINDT and spent 7 years studying Metallurgy which allows me to, with confidence, say that the lack of knowledge is a concern which I hope will be addressed. Specialist metallurgical processes such as heat treatment, metal joining and NDT deal with asset enhancement and protection which if done wrong, can have catastrophic consequences something I’ve witnessed.”
On question two, Mr Chambers said this:
“Practical metallography offered by M&C aims to address the huge gap in knowledge within the crucially important engineering industry in the UK. I have led many investigations which without my metallurgical training would have caused severe delay to some very important projects. As an example I was involved with a very prestigious Electron Beam Welding project for a flag ship supercar welding parts supplied by a number of sources. A particular batch of parts cracked after welding and it fell on my company to investigate as we were seen as the ‘experts’. Using the metallurgical investigation techniques I had been taught on my HNC & HND I produced a number of macro samples of the cracked part in order to find out ‘why’. The investigation concluded that the parts supplied were not made to specification and the welding process was not at fault. Had the metallurgical knowledge not been available it would fall on the part supplier to investigate themselves which would take the control and ultimately the response, away from us.
The courses offered by M&C are vitally important in retaining a companies ability to react to a problem professionally, with the sad demise of metallurgical training in the UK and the dilution of skills, M&C are creating the opportunity to redress the shortfall which I believe is critically important and certainly embraced by the industry.”
Mr Chambers reply to question 3 is as follows:
“M&C’s business has been built around the needs of industry, they have consulted, listened and acted to provide much needed vocational training based on solid scientific principles. Rather than teach ‘how’ to do something M&C answer the ‘why’. Metallurgy hasn’t changed much but the fundamental understanding of the physics and chemistry has been eroded to such a degree that the principle understanding of metallurgy is becoming lost. The UK is losing its steel making ability and has become a nation of service industries, without proper metallurgical training our ability as a nation of service industries will be lost.
Having supported M&C in my spare time with a number of students as a competent professional, I am delighted with the approach taken to close the skills gap that has been widening over the past 20 years.
On question 4, Mr Chambers said this:
“The biggest uncertainty in this country is we are losing our self-sufficiency in the field of Metallurgy, our ability to solve problems and innovate. As a business leader in the NDT industry managing multi-million-pound assets our ability to advise and offer expert advice to clients is under threat from a lack of suitable training. As a member of the BINDT I have been very vocal in trying to re-establish Metallurgy on the curriculum for NDT qualifications, I believe there is a demand and an appetite for this but requires the ability of someone to deliver it. M&C and its innovative vocational courses, tailored learning and support is vital if this is to be recognised. My experiences within the heat treatment and metal joining industry also highlights a need to retain and enhance this if we are to remain a credible service nation.”
Submissions and conclusion
HMRC’s submissions are reflected in our conclusions as set out below. For the appellant, Mr Brown made the following main submissions which he considered are supported by the evidence provided:
It has conducted R&D in the use of metallurgy as a subject discipline for its use, manufacturing, and engineering and provided advancements in this field as a whole through development of new and improved process with practical application. The appellant’s focus is on creating new teaching materials and methodologies that address educational gaps in metallurgy which aligns with the intention behind the Guidelines to foster innovation and advancement in science and technology. The appellant has advanced the field as there were no existing providers and with its innovative approach it meets a knowledge and skills gap.
The nature of the appellant’s project is illustrated by both case studies set out above. The evidence provided shows that (a) by focusing on practical skills, real-world application, and advanced metallurgical principles, and by using innovative content, as adapted to meet specific industry challenges (through engagement with industry and others as set out above), its courses make significant contributions to the field within the manufacturing engineering sector and push the boundaries of existing knowledge and practice in metallurgy, (b) the appellant’s use of such new teaching methods addresses technological uncertainties in educational methods within metallurgy, (c) activities such as creating ePhotographs for educational use, and developing unique course content, directly contribute to resolving scientific or technological uncertainties, (d) this overall approach fills gaps for industry (as shown in the evidence in the feedback and from professionals) by enhancing the skill set of participants and contributing to the broader knowledge base of metallurgy (e) the appellant has a systematic approach to its R&D projects, (f) the appellant utilizes R&D to plan and inform feasibility pilot projects and with action research models it has developed new methodologies, (g) the appellant’s activities integrate knowledge from different fields and of knowledge and skills into the workplace (h) the development of course materials, the use of specialised equipment for teaching, and the training of instructors on novel teaching methodologies are supporting activities essential to undertaking R&D, and (i) the R&D begins with the conceptualization and development of new teaching methodologies and ends when these methodologies are finalised and ready for implementation. The projects outlined in the case studies clearly mark the beginning and potential end of an R&D cycle.
The appellant’s creation of educational content and experiences as set out above, has introduced new knowledge and skills in the industry which extends overall knowledge and capability in metallurgy in industry leading to outcomes set out in the evidence above. Its activities have allow a wider and more diverse pool of talent to enter and enrich the sector and contribute to the continuous professional development of individuals in the field. Such contributions, especially when they introduce updated or new knowledge, align with HMRC’s definition of R&D, as they extend overall knowledge or capability in metallurgy.
The appellant has a systematic approach to its R&D projects. The projects consist of activities that collectively resolve identified scientific uncertainties, from initial concept to implementation. This comprehensive approach ensures that the R&D boundaries are correctly identified and managed. The appellant recognises the need to include indirect activities, which provide essential support to the R&D efforts, such as training required to support an R&D project.
An advance in (metallurgy) science or technology includes the adaptation of knowledge or capability from another field of science or technology in order to make the advance where this adaptation was not readily deducible. For example, this includes the appellant’s production of its range of courses.Such an advance may have tangible consequences (such as a new or more efficient cleaning product, or a process which generates less waste) or more intangible outcomes (such as new knowledge or cost improvements).
R&D includes a project which seeks (a) to extend overall knowledge or capability in a field of (metallurgy) science where there is an actual knowledge and skills gap shortage, or (b) create a process, material, device, product, or service which incorporates or represents an increase in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology, or (c) make an appreciable improvement to any of those through scientific or technological changes, or (d) use science or technology to duplicate the effect of any of those in a new or appreciably improved way.The appellant’s supporters have provided evidence which show that it has introduced metallurgy knowledge to meet existing knowledge gaps in manufacturing engineering.
Planning activities associated with a project directly contribute to resolving the scientific or technological uncertainty associated with the project, such as defining scientific or technological objectives, assessing scientific or technological feasibility, identifying particular scientific or technological uncertainties, estimating the development time, schedule, and resources of the R&D, and high-level outlining of the scientific or technical work, as well as the detailed planning and management of the work.
The appellant recognises that (a) scientific or technological uncertainty includes system uncertainty. It often arises from turning something that has already been established as scientifically feasible into a cost-effective, reliable, and reproducible process, material, device, product, or service (but not uncertainties that can readily be resolved by a competent professional working in the field or improvements, optimisations and fine-tuning which do not materially affect the underlying science or technology, and (b) information or other content which is delivered through a scientific or technological medium is not of itself science or technology. However, improvements in scientific or technological means to create, manipulate and transfer information or other content can be scientific or technological advances, and resolving the scientific or technological uncertainty associated with such projects is R&D.
Other examples of advances to the field of science are shown by (a) the positive changes shown in course review forms from ECMS and feedback from individuals who have participated in the appellant’s and ECMS’ courses, and (b) endorsements from professional bodies and experts which show that the appellant’s offerings are recognized as valuable and innovative within the professional community. The appellant has received recognition or accreditation from regulating authorities, such as UCASS, which show that its educational services are not just advancing its own company but are contributing to the standards and practices of the metallurgical field.
The detailed reasons provided by persons in industry on whymetallurgy is important to their industrial sector highlight the vital role and wide-ranging impact of metallurgy across different fields. These responses underscore the significance of metallurgy in various sectors as set out above which highlights the indispensable role of metallurgical knowledge and expertise in advancing technology and ensuring quality and safety in numerous industries. Feedback from industry mentors and professionals who have applied the appellant’s training in their work settings shows the practical impact of the appellant’s training on professional practices in the metallurgy sector.
The professional assessments from Mr Whorton, Mr Durkan, and Mr Chambers all highlight a significant gap in metallurgy knowledge and skills within the UK, which shows an urgent need for specialised education and training. They describe the challenges faced by the industry due to a lack of practical vocational training and the aging workforce. The feedback indicates that addressing these challenges involves overcoming scientific or technological uncertainties, especially in developing new methods and content for metallurgy education that were not previously available or deducible by competent professionals. The feedback they provided (a) details the development of new educational methodologies which, as set out above, directly contribute to resolving the identified scientific or technological uncertainties by creating innovative teaching materials and methods aimed at addressing the educational gaps in metallurgy, and (b) touches upon supporting activities essential to R&D, such as the development of specialised training modules, adaptation of existing scientific principles for educational purposes, and engagement strategies to ascertain industry needs, (c) outlines a clear timeline for the R&D project, and (d) shows that the project aims to achieve an advance in metallurgical science by addressing specific scientific and technological uncertainties through the development of new educational methodologies and practical training programs. Their insights underscore the project’s alignment with the Guidelines and highlight its potential to significantly contribute to the advancement of metallurgical science and education, addressing a critical skills gap in the UK industry.
HMRC lacked diligence in their assessment of the appellant’s R&D claim. HMRC did not employ staff with sufficient expertise in metallurgy.The HMRC officers tasked with reviewing the claim lacked the technical competence required to understand the scope and significance of the project. There was a fundamental failure to appreciate the engineering-based nature of the work and its adherence to well-establishedscientific principles underpinning metallurgy.HMRC could not comprehend the issues of using materials and metallurgical sciences linked to physics and chemistry. The activities undertaken by the appellant were not a mere extension of existing educational methodologies but represented a substantial advancement in the application of scientific and engineering principles to the education of metallurgy. HMRC did not properly evaluate this innovative approach.
The alternative dispute resolution process was fatally flawed in its execution. It did not provide a fair or balanced opportunity for the appellant to present its case. Despite the appellant submitting detailed and compelling evidence, this evidence was either dismissed or inadequately considered.The ADR process was not conducted in a spirit of mediation but instead appeared to be a one-sided view that failed to engage with the technical aspects of the claim. Moreover, the Chair of the ADR panel, a former schoolteacher with no relevant expertise was ill-equipped to assess the technical details of the R&D claim. The failure to properly consider the appellant’s evidence points to a broader issue of bias and a lack of professional competence in the handling of this matter.
In our view, as HMRC submitted, the appellant has not provided evidence that its expenditure related to qualifying R&D:
It is readily apparent from the Guidelines that a project constitutes R&D within their meaning only if it seeks to achieve an advance in overall knowledge or capability of a particular field of science or technology (see paras 1 and 6), which is publicly available knowledge or capability by a competent professional working in the field (see paras 20 and 22). It encompasses a project which is a number of activities conducted to a method or plan to achieve such an advance in the field of science or technology and all activities that (a) collectively resolve the scientific or technological uncertainty associated with achieving the advance and and/or (b) directly contribute to achieving such an advance (see paras 1, 3 and 4) Scientific or technological uncertainty exists when knowledge of whether something is scientifically possible or technologically feasible, or how to achieve it in practice, is not readily available or deducible by a competent professional working in the field. It includes system uncertainty and will often arise from turning something that has already been established as scientifically feasible into a cost-effective, reliable, and reproducible process, material, device, product, or service. It does not include uncertainties that can readily be resolved by a competent professional or improvements, optimisations and fine-tuning which do not materially affect the underlying science or technology.
It is clear from the Guidelines that R&D does not encompass activities comprising (a) the development of unique, new and innovative methods of providing information, education and training which is designed to further the knowledge and/or skills of individuals as regards existing scientific or technological knowledge/capabilities in a particular field of science or technology and/or (b) the provision of that information, education and training.
In this case, all activities which the appellant, Mr Brown, Mr Bacon and the other professionals referred to above have identified, comprise and/or are fundamentally linked to the provision of information, education and training through the model and with the content which the appellant has developed for those who participate in the appellant’s courses. The uncertainties and advances to which the appellant and these persons refer are advances in a social science, education, and not in a field of science or technology. There is no suggestion in any of the evidence or extensive submissions made that the appellant’s own activities in the relevant periods in any way furthered publicly available knowledge of any aspect of the scientific field of metallurgy/materials or advanced capability in that field by a competent professional whether through the resolution of scientific uncertainty or otherwise.
Essentially the uncertainties and advances which the appellant/Mr Brown and the various professionals referred to above describe are in relation to seeking to meet industry challenges due to a lack of vocational training and the ageing and depleting workforce in metallurgy and optimisations in the field of education, training and enhancement of practical skills. It is not relevant that the appellant’s approach to and methodology employed in its training and educational courses may extend knowledge and practical skills to a wider, more diverse group of people and thereby may improve and/or increase the labour market in industries which require persons with knowledge and skills related to metallurgy. Increasing and/or improving the workforce by using innovative ways of educating and training them with existing publicly available knowledge and existing capabilities in the field of metallurgy does not mean that the appellant itself has made an advancement in the relevant field of science itself within the meaning of the Guidelines.
We explained to Mr Brown at the hearing that it is not the role of the tribunal to consider the appellant’s complaints as regards HMRC’s conduct in relation to the appellant whether as part of the alternative dispute resolution procedure or otherwise.
Conclusion
For all the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.
This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.
RELEASE DATE: 4th DECEMBER 2025
