Andrius Kazlauskas v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 23 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1476 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
Mr Andrius Kazlauskas applied for permission to bring a five‑years‑nine‑months late appeal against HMRC assessments for excise duty (£16,588) and a penalty (£6,386) arising from seizure of hand‑rolling tobacco. The First‑tier Tribunal applied the established three‑stage test (length of delay; reasons for delay; evaluation of all circumstances including merits and prejudice) and, balancing the serious delay, weak merits and the need for efficient litigation and respect for statutory time limits, refused permission to admit the appeal out of time. The Tribunal had previously granted a Hardship Application but nonetheless dismissed the late‑appeal application; the appellant was given the right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 within 56 days.
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 applies the three‑stage discretion for admitting late appeals: (1) assess the length of the delay; (2) consider the reasons for the delay; and (3) evaluate all relevant circumstances including the strength of the underlying case, prejudice, efficient and proportionate litigation and respect for statutory time limits — with significant delay and weak merits justifying refusal of permission to file a very 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 Tribunal acknowledged administrative failures (lost/misplaced emails and an initial strike‑out that was later reinstated) and apologised, but indicated such failings did not outweigh the seriousness of a long delay. The judgment also accepts that a paper hearing is appropriate where the appellant cannot attend and a video hearing cannot be listed.