Julian Edwards v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 279 (TC)
Anthony Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC
23 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 702 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Two people's tax appeals were thrown out for missing deadlines. They tried to get them reinstated, but the judge said they were too late and hadn't followed the rules properly. Their representative didn't communicate well, and the judge didn't believe their excuses. The appeals stayed cancelled.
Key Facts
- •Appellants' appeals were struck out in December 2023 for non-compliance with Tribunal Directions.
- •Appellants made out-of-time applications for reinstatement.
- •Appellants failed to comply with multiple directions regarding witness statements, listing information, and hearing bundles.
- •Significant communication failures occurred between the Appellants, their representative (MTM Consultants Ltd), HMRC, and the Tribunal.
- •Disputed emails: Appellants claimed an email containing hearing dates was sent on November 9th, 2023, but the Tribunal and HMRC had no record of it. The Tribunal also claimed to have sent emails on December 21st and January 31st, 2024, which the Appellants denied receiving.
- •The Appellants' applications for reinstatement were 18 days late.
Legal Principles
Guidance on applications for permission to appeal out of time (or reinstate struck-out appeals) follows a three-stage process from *Denton v TH White Ltd*.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC), BPP Holdings Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55, Dominic Chappell v the Pensions Regulator [2019] UKUT 209 (TCC)
When considering applications for reinstatement, the merits of the appellant's case are only considered if they have an 'unanswerable case'.
Chappell
Failures by a litigant's advisor are generally treated as failures by the litigant.
HMRC v Katib [2019] UKUT 189 (TCC)
Outcomes
Applications to extend the time limit for reinstatement were refused.
The 18-day delay was deemed serious and significant. The reasons for the delay (failure of the representative to act) were not considered sufficient. The Tribunal found that the Appellants had not complied with directions and the application lacked reasonable prospects of success. This was the second time the appeals had been struck out.