Cork Bonded Warehouse Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 21 June 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 215 (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

Cork Bonded Warehouse Ltd sought permission to bring an appeal out of time against an excise duty Assessment dated 26 March 2020. The tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage test, found an eight-plus month delay caused by the agent’s inadvertent failure to open an emailed attachment, but concluded that this did not amount to a good reason. Permission for the late appeal 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 applied the Denton/Martland approach: (1) quantify the delay, (2) identify and assess the reasons for it, and (3) balance all relevant circumstances with particular weight to the efficient conduct of litigation and compliance with rules; an adviser’s inadvertent failure to open an attachment (even considering pandemic-related home-working) did not constitute a good reason to allow an eight-month late appeal absent exceptional supporting circumstances.

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 noted that the existence of a related stayed appeal covering the same facts can be a factor in favour of permitting a late appeal because of overlapping disclosure and limited additional burden on the respondent; it also observed that absence of deliberate misconduct or a genuine intention to pursue the appeal are not necessarily positive factors unless they amount to more than merely the absence of negative conduct.