Anthony Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 23 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 702 (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 case concerns out-of-time applications to reinstate appeals that had been struck out after the appellants failed to comply with Tribunal directions. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a purported 9 November 2023 email from the appellants' representative was not sent or at least was not received, and that Tribunal letters of 21 December 2023 and 31 January 2024 had been received in the representative's inbox but were not actioned or forwarded. The applications to extend time and to reinstate were refused and the appeals remain struck out.
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 applied the three-stage test for extending time and held that where a litigant’s adviser receives Tribunal communications and fails to act or forward them, that failure is ordinarily attributable to the litigant and will not normally justify extending time for reinstatement; contemporaneous records are required to prove disputed email receipt, and an automatic acknowledgement alone is insufficient to establish delivery of substantive correspondence.
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 (obiter) that it is improbable a single substantive email sent to two recipients would disappear from both recipients’ systems without a trace and that deletion after acknowledgement without any GLiMR record is unlikely. It also noted that prejudice to an appellant from being unable to pursue substantive claims does not automatically outweigh the need for compliance with directions and statutory time limits.