Candido Pereira Rodrigues v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 517 (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
This case concerns an application to admit two late appeals against Personal Liability Notices totalling £737,124.73. The Tribunal reinstated struck-out appeals to consider the late-notification application but, applying the three-stage test (length of delay, reasons for delay, and all other circumstances including merits and prejudice), refused permission to notify the appeals late and did not admit them. The Tribunal produced full findings and reasons and noted that failures by advisers are generally treated as failures by the litigant. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal may be sought under Rule 39 within the time limit.
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 applies the established three-stage approach to late-appeal applications: assess length of delay, then reasons for the delay (treating failures of advisers as normally attributable to the litigant), and finally weigh all other circumstances including the merits and prejudice, with an emphasis on efficient litigation and respect for statutory time limits. Using contemporaneous documentary evidence over late oral testimony was central to the Tribunal’s factual findings.
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 oral evidence given years after the events has limited weight and that lack of funds or litigant-in-person status is generally not a good reason for non-compliance with appeal time limits. It also noted that Tribunals should assist unrepresented litigants and that representation is not a prerequisite for participating in video hearings.