Richard Alderson v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1167 (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
Mr Alderson appealed HMRC CJRS assessments and was automatically struck out for failing to comply with an unless order. He applied to reinstate; the Tribunal applied the three‑stage test (seriousness of breach; reasons for breach; overall balance), found the breaches serious and the reasons (junk‑mail, health) not fully proven, but concluded the overall balance favoured reinstatement. The Tribunal allowed reinstatement and made consequential case‑management directions.
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 decision follows a three‑stage approach to reinstatement under the rules: (i) assess the seriousness of the breach (including the underlying failures to comply with directions); (ii) examine the reasons given for the breach (unsupported assertions such as emails going to junk mail are insufficient); and (iii) balance all circumstances, where personal difficulties and litigant‑in‑person status may be relevant but do not automatically outweigh the need for procedural discipline.
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 striking out an appeal is a draconian remedy of last resort and should be approached with caution, and that the merits of the underlying appeal are generally irrelevant to a reinstatement application unless they are so strong as to amount to a summary‑judgment‑style case.