City Plant Ltd v Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 May 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 414 (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
City Plant applied for permission to bring a late appeal against a £1,673,701 landfill tax assessment issued in 2012, arguing reasons including reliance on adviser KPMG and HMRC conduct; the Tribunal applied the established three‑stage test for admitting late appeals and refused permission. The Tribunal found the delay was very substantial with no adequate explanation, City Plant’s substantive case was not shown to be compelling, and the passage of time would likely prejudice the parties, so the late appeal was not admitted.
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 three‑stage discretionary test for admitting late tax appeals (length of the delay; reasons for the default; and all the circumstances including the merit of the appeal and prejudice to the parties) and held that statutory time limits carry significant weight; unexplained long delay and lack of compelling merits justify refusing permission to admit a late appeal. The Tribunal also indicated it should form a high‑level impression of merits rather than conduct a full merits hearing when considering prejudice.
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 expressed that the amount at stake or potential hardship to the appellant do not outweigh a significant unexplained delay; failings by professional advisers are generally attributed to the client and do not, without countervailing factors, justify extending time; and subsequent changes in law or policy are irrelevant to assessing an assessment under the law in force when the assessment was made.