Nissi N Nissi Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 22 May 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 567 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 Tribunal decision concerns applications by Nissi N Nissi Ltd and Ms Adeosun for permission to bring late appeals against two VAT-related penalty assessments and a personal liability notice (PLN). The appeals were 9–11 months late; the appellants relied on their accountant and non-awareness of the notices. Applying the Martland/Denton approach the Tribunal found the delay serious and unexplained and refused permission to admit the late appeals.

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 Martland/Denton test and concluded that substantial, unexplained delay and a collective failure by the company, its director and their accountant to ensure receipt and action of correspondence justified refusing an extension of time; overlap with in-time substantive VAT appeals did not alone make up for the long unexplained delay.

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 Tribunal observed that it might approach stage 3 of Martland with somewhat less rigidity where penalty appeals are intrinsically connected to in-time substantive appeals, because some issues will be considered in the substantive hearing. It also noted that reliance on an accountant does not automatically excuse delay and parties should have procedures to manage correspondence.

Warning

The chunk contains duplicated and somewhat disordered text (repetitions of the same passages), which required consolidation when extracting findings. The provided notes contain some duplicated and disordered text; they were consolidated to judgment findings.