Fameface Import Ltd v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2018] UKFTT 565 (TC) (28 September 2018)

Fameface Import Ltd v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2018] UKFTT 565 (TC) (28 September 2018)

The Appellant failed to establish that the original notice of appeal was validly submitted and wrongly rejected. The delay in filing the second notice of appeal was serious and significant, and no good reason was provided for the delay. The detriment to the Respondents in allowing a late appeal outweighed the detriment to the Appellant in refusing permission. Accordingly, permission for a late appeal was refused.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 565
Parties
Appellant: Fameface Import Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal) / Preliminary Issue—permission for Late Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed—permission for late appeal refused
Legal Topics
Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme (awrs), Appeal Procedure, Late Appeal Applications, Tribunal Procedure, Relief From Sanctions
Tax Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme (awrs) Appeal Procedure Late Appeal Applications Tribunal Procedure Relief From Sanctions

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fameface Import Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal) / Preliminary Issue—permission for Late Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original notice of appeal was valid and wrongly rejected by the Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted for a late appeal under Section 16(1F) Finance Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to establish that the original notice of appeal was validly submitted and wrongly rejected. The delay in filing the second notice of appeal was serious and significant, and no good reason was provided for the delay. The detriment to the Respondents in allowing a late appeal outweighed the detriment to the Appellant in refusing permission. Accordingly, permission for a late appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed—permission for late appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal cannot proceed on the basis of the original notice of appeal of 19 July 2017.
  • Permission to appeal out of time is refused.