Jordan Lyden v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 February 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 204 (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 for permission to file a late appeal against HMRC closure notices for 2018/19 and 2019/20 after the 30‑day post‑review period. The Tribunal found the appellant’s notice of appeal was about four months late, accepted the agent’s COVID‑related incapacity for part of the delay but found insufficient evidence that the appellant’s injury or absence in Australia justified the delay, and refused permission after balancing prejudice and merits.
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 held that an agent’s period of incapacity can constitute a “good reason” for delay only for the duration of that incapacity and is not necessarily sufficient to excuse earlier delay; taxpayers who appoint agents remain responsible for ensuring appeals are pursued; and absence abroad is not automatically a good reason where remote communication was practicable. These principles guided the exercise of discretion to refuse permission.
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 (obiter) that it lacks jurisdiction to address broader complaints about perceived asymmetry between taxpayers’ strict 30‑day deadlines and HMRC’s longer response times, and noted that a detailed merits assessment is generally unnecessary when deciding permission, though a plainly hopeless appeal may weigh against granting permission.