Ava Estell Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 13 February 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 203 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

HMRC applied to strike out two joined appeals challenging Notices of Requirement to give security (two to the first appellant for PAYE/NICs and VAT, and one to the second appellant for joint PAYE/NICs). The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the PAYE/NICs appeals because no prior appeal to HMRC had been made, and it lost jurisdiction over the VAT appeal when HMRC withdrew that Notice after the appeal was filed. HMRC’s strike out application was allowed and both appeals were struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the First-tier Tribunal Rules.

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 held that an appeal to it against a Notice of Requirement in respect of PAYE and NICs requires a prior appeal to HMRC, and that absence of that prior step means the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; additionally, withdrawal by HMRC of the underlying notice after an appeal is made removes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over that matter, justifying strike out.

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: low

The decision contains observations that the Tribunal’s provisional admission date for a late appeal does not change the appeal’s filing date for jurisdictional purposes, and that a single Notice of Appeal filed by multiple appellants can be treated as an appeal by each even if the Tribunal later registers separate appeals; these points were treated as non-essential observations.