East Midlands Waste Management Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 17 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1603 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This case concerned whether three late appeals (two VAT penalties and one VAT assessment) should be admitted out of time. The Tribunal applied the statutory three-stage late-admission test and, despite significant delays (ranging up to 273 days), admitted all three appeals because of collaborative correspondence between HMRC and the taxpayer’s advisers, a reasonable explanation for delays including a change of adviser, and proportionality given modest delay for one decision. The Tribunal recorded that HMRC’s conduct did not warrant criticism and directed admission of the 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: medium
The Tribunal’s decision indicates that, when exercising its discretion to admit late appeals, relevant considerations include (1) the period and reasons for delay, (2) the effect of collaborative correspondence and any lack of urgency from HMRC (which may make refusal disproportionate), and (3) the practical impact of periods during which a taxpayer cannot notify an appeal because HMRC is considering a late review; a change of professional adviser can also be a relevant factor in assessing reasonableness of 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 judgment recorded non-binding observations that part-time sitting at the same chambers as an advocate does not require recusal absent any perception of bias and where no party objects; that informality and collaboration between HMRC and taxpayers/advisers can be helpful and should not be discouraged (while time limits remain important); and that the Tribunal would not express a view on the effectiveness of pre-emptive opt-outs of the costs regime.
Warning
The hearing bundle and materials were described as disordered and repetitive, making the chronology and issues difficult to follow. The notes record that the hearing bundle and materials were disordered and repetitive, making chronology and issues difficult to follow. None