Jeyalingam Balasingam v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1541 (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 Balasingam’s late appeal against a personal liability notice relating to VAT penalties imposed on Sprowston Food and Wine Ltd. The First-tier Tribunal rejected HMRC’s strike-out res judicata/abuse‑of‑process challenge, holding that an earlier VAT decision did not finally determine the statutory requirements for a distinct personal liability notice, but refused permission to extend time for the appeal filed some 4.5 years late, so the appeal cannot proceed.
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
A prior tribunal decision will not preclude re-litigation of a distinct statutory form of liability (here, a personal liability notice) where the earlier appeal did not expressly put or determine the statutory requirements for that separate liability because it was outside the scope or pleadings of the earlier appeal. Separately, an application for permission to file a late appeal requires demonstration of good reasons for delay; routine procedural failings or advice do not necessarily excuse a long delay where appeal rights were set out and representation was available.
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 observed that differing findings between related tribunal decisions on different taxes (for example, findings of carelessness in an income tax appeal versus deliberateness in a VAT appeal) do not automatically amount to new evidence permitting reopening of a prior decision; the established three‑fold new‑evidence test (Ladd v Marshall type criteria) must be satisfied. It also indicated that failures by an appellant’s adviser will generally be treated as the appellant’s failures in late‑filing applications.