Dr John Reynolds v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 July 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1099 (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
Dr Reynolds sought reinstatement of a tax appeal he had withdrawn; Judge A reinstated it without HMRC having been given notice, and Judge B later set that decision aside and directed a hearing. The First-tier Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to reconsider but that s 54 of the Tax Management Act (TMA) created a deemed agreement after the statutory 30-day period, so the Tribunal had no power to allow reinstatement; the application was refused. The decision records rights to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
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 Part 4 of the Tribunal Rules together with s 9 TCEA to hold that one judge may review or set aside another judge’s decision for error of law or procedural irregularity, but that where a statutory provision (s 54 TMA) creates a deemed agreement after the prescribed period, that statutory regime takes priority and precludes the Tribunal from reinstating an appeal once the s 54 period has elapsed.
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 noted obiter that if Judge A’s act had been characterised as a direction rather than a final decision it still could be set aside where it rested on an innocent misstatement of facts or a material change in circumstances (invoking the Tibbles principle), and observed practically that the procedural difficulties might have been avoided had the appellant copied HMRC as directed.