Diane Stoney v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 10 July 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 850 (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

This appeal concerned an application for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC assessments and closure notices totalling £9,911.80 relating to alleged invalid EIS claims. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland test, found the appellant had reading/writing difficulties, was a victim of fraud and reasonably relied on an adviser, and concluded the short delay (about four months) was excused. On balance the prejudice of refusing permission outweighed prejudice to HMRC, so permission for the late appeal was granted.

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 the established three-stage Martland framework for late-appeal applications (establish the extent of delay; identify and assess the reasons for the default; evaluate all circumstances including prejudice and a limited merits impression). Within that framework the decision indicates that claimant vulnerability (such as reading/writing difficulties) and legitimate reliance on third-party assistance can constitute a good reason to excuse delay and justify granting permission for a late appeal.

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 noted as guidance that appellants should not be permitted to delay appealing simply to await successful outcomes in other cases, though awareness of similar cases may support an explanation; and that tribunals should generally avoid a detailed merits assessment at the permission stage while retaining the ability to form a broad impression of obvious strength or weakness.