Najat Hamasala v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 23 October 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1261 (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 appeal concerns Mr Najat Hamasala’s application for permission to bring late appeals: (1) to admit and determine a late appeal against a 5 June 2017 closure notice and discovery assessments, and (2) to give late notice of appeals to HMRC against late‑filing penalties totaling £3,955. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage Martland/Denton approach, found very lengthy delays (several years to almost seven years) and that the reasons given (unawareness of the Tribunal, time spent in the Republic of Ireland, reliance on an accountant) were inadequate. The application was dismissed and permission to pursue the late appeals was refused.

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’s decision indicates that very long unexplained delays in notifying appeals will normally justify refusing permission to admit late appeals, and that failures of a litigant’s adviser will generally be treated as failures of the litigant when assessing reasons for 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 recorded that it would have reached the same result even if it had placed greater emphasis on strict compliance with time limits; it also noted that lack of funds to instruct advisers should not generally carry weight in explaining delay.