Engim Cenkci v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 270 (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 concerned an application to admit a late appeal against HMRC discovery and penalty assessments issued in 2020. The appellant's agent asserted a letter of appeal was posted on 27 July 2020, but the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that no such posting occurred and that the appellant failed to explain lengthy delay. Applying the relevant three-stage test, the Tribunal refused permission to admit the late appeal.
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 decision establishes that an appellant (through their agent) bears the burden of proving that an appeal was posted when relying on deemed service by post, and that applications to admit late appeals should be determined by the three-stage Martland/Denton approach: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the default, and (3) an overall balancing exercise including prejudice and merits.
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 indicates, as non-binding guidance, that suspension of debt collection or telephone assurances do not by themselves prove an ongoing appeal or justify non-compliance with appeal time limits, and that very limited substantive evidence (for example, mere address entries) may weaken prospects of success and be relevant in the stage-three balancing.