Rizwan Butt v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 295 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Mr Rizwan Butt should be permitted to bring an out‑of‑time appeal against a company‑officer liability penalty for Trade Lynx after a 327‑day delay. The First-tier Tribunal refused to admit the Trade Lynx appeal as the delay was serious and the explanation—seeking information from HMRC—did not justify missing the statutory time limit, but it did admit two separate Quantum London appeals which were either in time or involved a much shorter delay.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal treated very long delay against a 30‑day appeal limit as a decisive factor weighing against admission; attempts to obtain further information from HMRC do not, by themselves, excuse failure to comply with statutory timetables where a protective appeal could have been lodged and particulars sought later. The Tribunal also declined to admit fresh evidence after the hearing where its late production was not credibly explained and its admission would be unfair to the other party.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observed that admitting otherwise late appeals that concern different companies, traders and transactions can impose significant additional burden and prejudice on HMRC and tribunal resources, and that the appellant’s hardship from refusal to admit a late appeal does not automatically outweigh serious unexplained delay and prejudice to the respondent.