Reno v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2019] UKFTT 184 (TC) (11 March 2019)

The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Rules 8(5) and/or 5(2) to consider reinstatement of struck out reinstatement proceedings, but the appellant's persistent non-compliance with Tribunal directions, lack of cogent reasons for default, and absence of material change since strike out justify dismissal of the application.

Citation: [2019] UKFTT 184 (TC)
Parties: Appellant: Joseph Thomas Reno; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 11 March 2019
Procedural Posture: VAT Appeal / Application to Reinstate Struck Out Reinstatement Proceedings
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: VAT Assessment, Tribunal Procedure, Relief From Sanctions, Reinstatement of Proceedings

Tax Law Civil Procedure VAT Assessment Tribunal Procedure Relief From Sanctions Reinstatement of Proceedings

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Joseph Thomas Reno

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / Application to Reinstate Struck Out Reinstatement Proceedings

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to reinstate struck out reinstatement proceedings under Rules 8(5) or 5(2)
2 Whether the appellant's application to reinstate should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

First reinstatement application remains struck out
Appellant may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal within 56 days