Adrian Atkins v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 17 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 875 (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
This case concerned an application for permission to bring an appeal more than two years late against HMRC’s refusal of a £110,455 VAT repayment. The Tribunal found the 3 years and 29 days delay to be serious, that the appellant’s explanations (including pandemic disruption and alleged late review) were insufficient, and that the balance of prejudice and the importance of time limits meant permission to appeal out of time was refused. The appellant was informed of the right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
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 a multi-stage test for relief from time limits: first assess the seriousness of the delay, second examine the reasons for the delay, and third balance all relevant circumstances including the merits of the underlying appeal and prejudice to the parties; applying that test, significant unexplained delay and outweighing prejudice justified refusal of permission to bring the late appeal. The decision also treated VATA review provisions (s.83F) and service rules as relevant to consequences of a late review.
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 suggested that an arguable contention that a review was notified late does not necessarily assist an appellant if s.83F(8) means the original decision remains effective, and that a taxpayer’s belated request that HMRC agree not to oppose a late appeal is not necessarily material if no agreement was given.
Warning
This chunk contains extensive repetition and duplicated passages, making it somewhat noisy to follow. This summary is based on a single, somewhat noisy chunk of notes that contains repetition and may omit parts of the full judgment.