Gagajoo Gardens & Landscapes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 July 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1100 (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 concerns Gagajoo Gardens & Landscapes Ltd’s appeals against VAT default surcharges and Schedule 24/26 penalties; most appeals were substantially late and the company relied on medical, personal and cashflow reasons. The Tribunal refused permission for the late appeals, found the appellant had not proved a reasonable excuse for the payment defaults, and upheld HMRC’s penalties (save for one penalty removed on review). The appellant’s overall appeal was dismissed.
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 a three-stage, Denton-style approach to permission for late appeals (considering length of delay, reason for the delay, and balancing all relevant circumstances) and treated very long unexplained delay as a strong factor against granting permission. On the merits, the Tribunal held that a claimed reasonable excuse must be supported by objective evidence and must explain why payments could not be made when other obligations (such as filing) were met; absent such evidence, the reasonable excuse defence fails.
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 continuing to trade and compliance with other filing obligations undermines assertions that director ill-health or personal difficulties prevented payment. It also noted that HMRC’s practice of allocating payments to the oldest debts is permissible in the absence of specific allocation directions from the taxpayer.