Shaban Suleman v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 395 (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 Shaban Suleman's application to reinstate a tax appeal that had been struck out for failure to comply with Tribunal directions. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that directions and Unless Orders had been sent to the address on the notice of appeal, that the appellant (and/or his agent) failed to comply with six directions including two Unless Orders, and that those breaches were serious and significant with no good reason shown. Applying the Denton/Martland/Chappell three-stage framework and weighing prejudice and the public interest in efficient litigation, the tribunal refused reinstatement.
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 decision establishes that, for reinstatement under Rule 8, failure to provide required agent authorisation and failure to make timely enquiries about outstanding directions can constitute culpable non-compliance; and where correspondence was sent to the address given in the notice of appeal and not returned, the tribunal may infer receipt on the balance of probabilities so that non-receipt is not proved. These points formed the essential basis for refusing reinstatement.
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 noted (obiter) that admitting an absent applicant’s witness statement can be permissible under the overriding objective but carries limited weight if the witness cannot be examined, and that although final loss of the right to appeal is a severe prejudice, it may be outweighed by prejudice to the respondent and public interest where breaches are serious and unexplained.