Bowland Inns and Hotels Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1409 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
Bowland Inns sought permission to appeal out of time against an HMRC assessment of 18 August 2025; the appeal was 134 days late and the Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage test for late permission, found the delay was caused by an administrative error by Bowland’s advisers (KPMG), treated that as Bowland’s failure, and held the explanation was not satisfactory. The application for late permission was refused; standard rights to seek permission to appeal that refusal were noted.
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 Martland approach: (1) assess the length of delay (here 134 days); (2) consider reasons for the delay (administrative error by the taxpayer’s advisers, treated as the taxpayer’s failure); and (3) evaluate all circumstances including prejudice and proportionality. It held that failures by a litigant’s adviser are generally attributable to the litigant and, absent a satisfactory explanation, do not justify granting permission for a 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 Tribunal noted obiter that a claim under s 80 VATA (credit/repayment) might be an alternative remedy but that such a hypothetical claim does not determine the out‑of‑time application. The decision also emphasised the importance of conducting litigation efficiently, at proportionate cost, and of respecting statutory time limits.
Warning
This chunk contains duplicated and repetitive passages and some formatting artifacts; care was taken to judgment the substantive points. Notes contain duplicated/repetitive passages and formatting artifacts; they may be materially incomplete.