David Morgan v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 16 July 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1063 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This case concerns an application by David Morgan to reinstate an appeal that had been automatically struck out for failure to comply with Tribunal directions and an "unless" order. The Tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage approach, concluded the breach was serious and occurred against a background of repeated non-compliance, and found the medical evidence and explanations insufficient to justify reinstatement. The application was refused and the appeal remains struck out.

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 Rule 8 using the Denton/Martland structured three-stage test: (1) assess the seriousness and significance of the breach; (2) consider the reasons for the default; and (3) balance all other relevant factors (including prejudice and the need for procedural discipline). Where an unless order follows multiple defaults, the Tribunal must take into account the sequence of underlying breaches when deciding whether to reinstate.

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 notes that a drafting error in an unless order does not prevent enforcement where the practical effect is clear and no party sought clarification. It also suggests that general assertions of difficulty contacting a client or chronic health problems require detailed evidential support (witness statements or solicitor explanation) to establish a good reason for non‑compliance.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML