Benjamin Hammant v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 February 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 244 (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
This case concerns Mr Benjamin Hammant’s application for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC late‑filing penalties totalling £1,200 for 2021/22. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage Denton/Martland approach, found a 112‑day delay to be serious, and, noting Mr Hammant had agreed to paperless communications and HMRC had sent notices and email alerts, refused permission to bring the late appeal. The Tribunal recorded rights to seek permission to appeal its decision.
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 applied the three‑stage test for permission to bring a late appeal (identify the failure and its seriousness; explain the default; evaluate all circumstances including prejudice and merits) and held that where a taxpayer has agreed to paperless communications and HMRC has sent the notices/alerts, unawareness of those communications may be insufficient to justify a substantial late appeal.
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 decision noted as non‑determinative that email alerts which do not link directly to account messages can be relied on by appellants to explain non‑receipt, and that the public interest in enforcing statutory time limits and finality in HMRC decisions is a relevant factor in refusing permission.