Dual Homes and Land Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 8 May 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 523 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Dual Homes and Land Ltd applied for permission to bring three tribunal appeals out of time against HMRC decisions reducing or denying VAT input tax and issuing assessments for 2022. The tribunal found a delay of over five months but accepted the appellant’s explanations (document review and attempts to engage with HMRC, and a timely statutory review request), found little genuine prejudice to HMRC, and granted permission to appeal out of time. The appeals may now proceed; either party may apply for permission to appeal this decision 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 tribunal applied the established three-stage discretionary test (length of delay; reasons for delay; balancing all relevant circumstances) and held that even a serious delay can be excused where credible evidence shows timely efforts to engage with HMRC and a statutory review was obtained within time, such that the balance of prejudice and merits favours granting permission to appeal out of time.

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 suggested it may be appropriate to permit appellants to pursue alternative legal arguments (for example Reemtsa-type claims) notwithstanding HMRC’s prior dismissal of those arguments, provided the balance of prejudice permits it; it also remarked that lack of funds for professional advice is not necessarily decisive against granting permission and noted the availability of pro bono assistance.