Hannaford PPE Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 24 April 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 459 (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

This case concerns applications for permission to bring late appeals by Hannaford PPE Ltd and Mr Jones against a VAT penalty and a personal liability notice after they did not receive an HMRC Decision Letter. The Tribunal applied the three-stage test for late appeals, found the Decision Letter had not been received, and held that HMRC bore responsibility for much of the delay while the appellants acted reasonably in seeking the letter and appealing promptly once they received it. Permission for the late appeals was granted.

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 treated failure by the respondent to provide a document necessary to understand a penalty (here, the Decision Letter) as a sufficient reason to grant permission for a late appeal where the taxpayer reasonably sought the document and appealed promptly once it was obtained; deemed service presumptions can be displaced when the taxpayer notifies the authority of non-receipt and makes reasonable efforts to obtain the missing document.

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 the high level of the penalties and the significant economic impact on the appellants are relevant considerations under the overriding objective, and that the manner in which a respondent presents its objection materials can affect the assessment of timelines and the reasonableness of appellants' conduct.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML