Blocksure Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 May 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 397 (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
Blocksure Ltd and its director sought permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC Notices of Requirement for security totalling £585,109.90 for PAYE and NICs. The First-tier Tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage test, found the delay serious and unjustified, and concluded Officer Laurie's decision to issue the NoRs was one a reasonable decision-maker could have made on the facts known to him. Permission to bring a late appeal was refused and the Tribunal said the substantive appeal would have failed.
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 three-stage Denton/Martland approach when deciding permission for a late appeal under the statutory regime (length of delay; reasons for default; balancing all circumstances including merits and prejudice). It held that a decision to require security can be reasonable where there are substantial arrears and a lack of recent payments, even if the taxpayer points to possible future R&D credits or anticipated external investment that remained uncertain at the decision date.
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 the wording of a NoR about time-to-pay and appeals may reasonably appear ambiguous to an unrepresented taxpayer, which can favour an applicant but is not decisive where other factors oppose granting permission. It also noted HMRC are not obliged to undertake detailed investigations into repeatedly promised but undelivered external investments when deciding whether to require security.