Adair & Ors v Revenue & Customs (applications for permission for late notification of appeal - reliance on advisers) [2021] UKFTT 66 (TC) (11 March 2021)

Adair & Ors v Revenue & Customs (applications for permission for late notification of appeal - reliance on advisers) [2021] UKFTT 66 (TC) (11 March 2021)

The delay of almost 14 months in notifying the appeals was serious and significant. There was no good reason for the delay except for an initial two-week period. Reliance on advisers does not constitute a good reason for delay. The applicants were repeatedly informed of the need to notify appeals individually and within the statutory time limit. The potential for efficient case management if permission were granted did not outweigh the importance of enforcing statutory time limits and efficient litigation. Permission for late notification of appeal was refused.

Citation
[2021] UKFTT 66
Parties
Applicants: Stephen Adair; Paul Haggett; Lee Martin; Stuart Nash; David Garbett; Bruce Cornfoot; David McCracken; Dave Sargent; Paul Allart; Richard Prior; Simon Galley; Steven Beard; Chris Murphy; Bruce Craig; Maureen Ure; John Knowles; Kenny Walker; Paul Langham; Michael Shipley; Marion Paterson; Colin McClurg; Dave Hill; Anne Moxon; Danny O’Rourke; Patrick Gray; Andrew Brown; Shaun Stokoe; Jason Carley-Smith; David Virgo; Bryce Whittle; Gary Summers; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission for Late Notification of Appeal / Determination of Applications for Permission to Notify Appeals Late, Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Permission for late notification of appeal refused
Legal Topics
Late Notification of Appeal, Reliance on Advisers, Statutory Time Limits, Schedule 36 Notices, Penalties for Non Compliance
Tax Law Civil Procedure Late Notification of Appeal Reliance on Advisers Statutory Time Limits Schedule 36 Notices Penalties for Non Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Adair; Paul Haggett; Lee Martin; Stuart Nash; David Garbett; Bruce Cornfoot; David McCracken; Dave Sargent; Paul Allart; Richard Prior; Simon Galley; Steven Beard; Chris Murphy; Bruce Craig; Maureen Ure; John Knowles; Kenny Walker; Paul Langham; Michael Shipley; Marion Paterson; Colin McClurg; Dave Hill; Anne Moxon; Danny O’Rourke; Patrick Gray; Andrew Brown; Shaun Stokoe; Jason Carley-Smith; David Virgo; Bryce Whittle; Gary Summers

Applicants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission for Late Notification of Appeal / Determination of Applications for Permission to Notify Appeals Late, Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for late notification of appeals against HMRC review decisions under Schedule 36 Notices
  2. 2 Whether reliance on advisers constitutes a good reason for delay
  3. 3 Whether it was reasonable to await outcome of ADR application before notifying appeals

Ratio Decidendi

The delay of almost 14 months in notifying the appeals was serious and significant. There was no good reason for the delay except for an initial two-week period. Reliance on advisers does not constitute a good reason for delay. The applicants were repeatedly informed of the need to notify appeals individually and within the statutory time limit. The potential for efficient case management if permission were granted did not outweigh the importance of enforcing statutory time limits and efficient litigation. Permission for late notification of appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission for late notification of appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications for permission to notify appeals late are refused.