Jonathan Batten v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1538 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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 concerns Mr Jonathan Batten's applications for permission to bring late appeals against HMRC amendments to Fairway Construction's partnership returns for 2015–16 and 2016–17 and a discovery assessment (with penalty) for 2019–20. The Tribunal found Mr Batten had a good reason for delay in respect of the 2015–16 and 2016–17 partnership amendments because HMRC correspondence reasonably led him to believe he had no right of appeal, but had no good reason for delay as to the 2019–20 assessment. Balancing connectedness of the factual issues and prejudice, the Tribunal nonetheless granted permission to appeal all three matters and gave directions for disclosure and case timetabling.
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 judgment supports two ratios: (1) where HMRC correspondence would reasonably lead a taxpayer to conclude they had no right of appeal, that can amount to a good reason for delay in seeking permission to bring a late appeal against a partnership amendment; and (2) where separate assessments or periods turn substantially on the same factual issues, a Tribunal may grant permission to appeal a later-period assessment despite no good reason for delay, if doing so avoids arbitrary or unjust outcomes and the incremental prejudice to HMRC is small.
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 Land Registry entries and completion statements naming a person are not necessarily conclusive proof of beneficial entitlement; inconsistent or curious documentary material may require a substantive hearing and can make an appellant’s case neither plainly strong nor plainly weak; and earlier HMRC positions that only the nominated partner could appeal amended partnership returns were not maintained, with prior Tribunal decisions indicating any partner or former partner may have standing.