Rohit Kotecha v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 330 (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 applications to reinstate an IHT appeal and to allow that reinstatement application to be brought out of time after the appeal was struck out for non‑compliance with an unless order. The tribunal found the agent’s emails had gone to his junk folder and he failed to diarise follow‑up, but treated the IT failure as not seriously culpable, balanced prejudice and the overriding objective, and allowed both the out‑of‑time application and the reinstatement; the appeal was reinstated. Parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal this decision.
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 applied a three‑stage analysis for out‑of‑time reinstatement applications (length of delay; reasons for the default; and a balancing exercise considering all circumstances and prejudice), held that agent failings are ordinarily attributable to the appellant but that genuine, non‑culpable technical failures and reasonable client reliance are relevant mitigating factors in the final balancing under the overriding objective, and treated proportionality of strike‑out as a material consideration.
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 decision recorded that the underlying merits of the IHT appeal were not assessed and should not determine reinstatement unless the merits are unanswerable; it also noted in obiter the practical importance of agents diarising and actively managing cases and that a long‑trusted agent’s client reliance plus non‑culpable technical failures can weigh in favour of reinstatement.