Mary Davidson v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 177 (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 appeal concerned Mrs Mary Davidson's attempt (filed December 2022) to challenge a Schedule 4 VAT Direction issued on 22 August 1985 and related complaints about HMRC maladministration. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints about HMRC conduct and struck that element out, and it refused permission to admit a very late appeal against the 1985 Direction, applying the three-stage approach and finding delay, prejudice to HMRC and prior opportunities to litigate fatal to the application.
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 the filing as an out-of-time application to appeal the 1985 Direction and applied the established three-stage test for admitting late appeals (length of delay; reasons for delay; balancing all relevant circumstances including prejudice and the strength of the case). It held that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to appealable decisions and does not extend to complaints about HMRC conduct, and that very long delay together with prejudice to the respondent and prior determinations justified refusal of permission to admit the late appeal.
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 judgment expresses that being unrepresented or lacking funds is not generally a sufficient excuse for missing statutory appeal deadlines, that later authorities published after the original decision carry limited weight where delay is extensive, and that the Tribunal should avoid detailed merits inquiries when deciding late-admission applications unless the merits are plainly overwhelming or plainly hopeless.