Stephen Ray v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 25 January 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 141 (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
Mr Ray sought permission to notify late appeals against 19 penalty/surcharge notices arising from Accelerated Payment Notices; the Tribunal applied the three‑stage Martland/Denton approach. It found delays of over five years, no adequate reason for the delay (mental‑health claims lacked medical support), and weak merits on the substantive grounds, and refused permission to bring late appeals. The decision records rights to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
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 applied and endorsed the three‑stage test (assess the length and significance of the delay; ascertain and evaluate the reasons for the delay; balance all circumstances including prejudice and the merits) and held that significant unexplained delay, unsupported assertions about personal circumstances, and weak or jurisdictionally irrelevant merits justify refusing permission to file late tax appeals; significant weight is to be given to statutory time limits.
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 litigants in person who are familiar with litigation are expected to comply with time limits and that participation in judicial review proceedings or hopes of better settlement terms do not ordinarily justify lengthy delay in bringing penalty appeals.