Martin Clarke West v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 63 (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
Mr Martin Clarke West sought permission to bring a series of late appeals against HMRC assessments, closure notices and penalties issued between 2017 and 2018, with delays exceeding 1,100 days. The First-tier Tribunal found the delays very serious, rejected reliance on various advisers and on Mr West’s health/caring responsibilities as good reasons for delay, regarded the proposed appeals as weak (notably the Sch 36 penalties), and refused permission to make late appeals.
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
Where lengthy delays (here over 1,000 days) are unexplained or insufficiently justified, they weigh heavily against granting permission for late appeals; ordinarily an appellant bears the consequences of their advisers’ failings unless exceptional circumstances are shown; and the tribunal may take into account the apparent weakness of the underlying appeal when exercising its discretion on admission without conducting a detailed merits hearing.
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 notes that direct enforcement action or warnings from HMRC (for example bankruptcy steps) can be a relevant “warning sign” that places responsibility on the appellant to act, and that granting permission after significant delay is likely to prejudice HMRC and divert tribunal resources—factors relevant to the discretion to admit late appeals.