OMID DJALILI v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Decision date: 28 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1501 (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 case concerned an application by Mr Omid Djalili for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC closure notices for tax years 2010–2015. The Tribunal applied the established three-stage approach (length of delay; reasons for default; balancing prejudice and merits) and found the 13 months 28 days delay serious, that the appellant had not proven reasonable reliance on non-disclosure or adviser/STAG advice, and that he did not act promptly after disclosure. Permission to bring the late appeal was refused.
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 binding rationale apparent from the judgment is that an applicant bears the burden to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that permission for a late appeal should be granted; tribunals should apply a three-stage assessment (length of delay, reasons for the delay, and a balancing exercise considering prejudice and merits); long and unexplained delays require compelling justification; and vague or uncorroborated reliance on advisers or informal groups is unlikely to justify a late appeal.
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 contains statements of guidance that are not strictly binding here: the mere existence of other pending appeals on the same issues does not by itself justify granting permission for a late appeal; financial hardship or large potential tax liability alone will generally not excuse a long delay; and failures by an adviser will ordinarily be treated as the applicant’s responsibility absent satisfactory explanation or corroboration.