JST (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 21 August 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1226 (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

JST (UK) Ltd applied for permission to appeal out of time against a 25 October 2017 closure notice denying a £1,425,000 deduction and increasing corporation tax by £342,000. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Denton/Martland approach, found an approximately eight-month delay was serious, that JST’s focus on concurrent restitution litigation and reliance on its advisers (BDO) did not provide a good reason for the delay, and refused permission to appeal out of time.

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 held that where delay is serious and not shown to be for a good reason, reliance on professional advisers will ordinarily be treated as the litigant’s failing unless there are exceptional facts showing the litigant did all that could reasonably be expected to keep matters on track; tribunals must balance length of delay, reasons for default, prejudice to the parties and the apparent strength of the substantive case when deciding late-appeal applications.

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 a reasonable taxpayer aware of a 30-day appeal right who is engaged with advisers and with HMRC should normally inquire about protective appeals, and that lack of contemporaneous adviser records weakens a claim of reliance; also that long-running enquiries or litigation do not by themselves excuse long delays in lodging a relatively straightforward appeal.