Michael Krishnan v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 23 April 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 622 (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 appeal sought permission to notify a late appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) issued 6 June 2017 holding the appellant personally liable for a £42,707.70 VAT penalty. The appellant notified the appeal on 11 October 2024, some 2,653 days late, gave no cogent explanation for the delay and did not attend the hearing. Applying the Martland three-stage approach and giving weight to timely litigation and statutory limits, the Tribunal refused permission to bring the appeal out of time.

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 the Martland three-stage approach and held that very substantial delay together with the absence of a cogent explanation weighs heavily against granting permission to notify an appeal late; at the balancing stage, particular weight is given to efficient, proportionate litigation and respect for statutory time limits.

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 indicates that post-hearing claims of non-receipt of a Notice of Hearing carry limited weight where reasonable steps to notify have been taken and notices were sent to the same email addresses used by the recipient, and that assertions of late awareness are undermined without supporting documentary evidence.