DDK Projects Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 16 October 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1251 (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

DDK Projects Ltd missed a VAT payment of £629,251.95 due 7 March 2024 and paid 32 days late after receiving HMRC's notice, attracting penalties of £25,307.98. The First-tier Tribunal accepted DDK's evidence that a combination of the director's unexpected full‑time caregiving after a traumatic birth, the outsourced bookkeeper's sudden compassionate leave, and HMRC's delayed letter together amounted to a "reasonable excuse" until the company received HMRC's notice; DDK paid the same day and the appeal was allowed. Penalties were therefore set aside.

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 held that several adverse events which individually might not suffice can, in combination, constitute a reasonable excuse if they objectively prevented timely payment, and that where the reasonable excuse ceases, payment made on the day the taxpayer became aware (here, upon receipt of HMRC's notice) can remedy the default without unreasonable 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 Tribunal observed (non‑bindingly) that it is understandable for a first‑time parent to be traumatised and to prioritise caregiving in a way that affects capacity to supervise company finances, and that reliance on an outsourced bookkeeper may be reasonable where a competent firm was engaged and systems had previously worked reliably.

Warning

The chunk repeats large sections verbatim and is therefore somewhat noisy and duplicated. notes are somewhat noisy and contain duplicated material but appear to set out the core findings.