Ariston Development Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 August 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 783 (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
Ariston sought permission to bring a VAT appeal about a £159,813 assessment issued 30 September 2020 but lodged the appeal on 19 May 2023, about 2 years 6 months late. The tribunal applied the three-stage Martland test, found the delay serious and significant, attributed the delay in part to the appellant's professional adviser, and refused permission for the out‑of‑time appeal. The decision notes the appellant may apply for permission to appeal the tribunal decision under Rule 39 within 56 days.
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 followed the Martland approach to permission applications: (1) assess the length of the delay; (2) ask why the default occurred; and (3) balance the overall fairness including prejudice and the public interest in finality. It treated misunderstandings or errors by a taxpayer's professional adviser as attributable to the taxpayer and held that such adviser-related confusion about the correct appeal route or ADR did not, on these facts, justify overcoming a substantial delay.
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 observed that, had this been a direct tax case where an initial communication might itself constitute an appeal to HMRC, the accountant's email might have been treated differently. It also noted that practical confusion between ADR and tribunal routes, or reliance on internet research, does not by itself excuse prolonged inaction, particularly where professional advisers are engaged.
Warning
Some passages in the chunk are duplicated and the text contains repeated material. Notes contain duplicated passages and may be incomplete.