Tamar Leisure Spot v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 86 (TC) (30 January 2013)

Tamar Leisure Spot v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 86 (TC) (30 January 2013)

The appeal was struck out because TLS failed to address their appeal to the correct body in 2009 and, more significantly, failed to diligently pursue the appeal thereafter. The Tribunal found that while the initial administrative error was understandable, the subsequent lack of action by TLS and their agents was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 86
Parties
Appellant: Tamar Leisure Spot; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 January 2013
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Application to Strike Out Appeal as Out of Time
Outcome
Appeal struck out as out of time; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Strike Out Application, VAT Treatment of Gaming Machines, Procedural Time Limits
Tax Law VAT Extension of Time Strike Out Application VAT Treatment of Gaming Machines Procedural Time Limits

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamar Leisure Spot

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Application to Strike Out Appeal as Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal against HMRC's refusal to repay VAT was made in time
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time should be granted for the appeal
  3. 3 Whether administrative error and subsequent delay justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was struck out because TLS failed to address their appeal to the correct body in 2009 and, more significantly, failed to diligently pursue the appeal thereafter. The Tribunal found that while the initial administrative error was understandable, the subsequent lack of action by TLS and their agents was culpable. The need for certainty and consistent application of time limits outweighed the interests of justice in granting an extension, especially as the claim was only revived coincidentally during archiving. The three-year cap from Marks & Spencer was not relevant to the procedural time limit for appeals.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out as out of time; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • HMRC's application to strike out TLS's case under Rule 8 is allowed.
  • No extension of time is granted for the appeal.