TC09670 - [2025] UKFTT 01260 (TC)

The agreed length of the delay, 17 days, was not serious and significant. Context was to be taken into account. The Appellant had made an appeal in time but unfortunately the appeal as submitted was defective.

The Grounds of Appeal in the NOA were clear: the Appellant had supplier declarations for some of the imports underlying the C18 meaning that preferential treatment based on origin was available. For those imports where no supplier declaration was held it was a matter of quantum. On the merits the appeal could not be said to be very weak. It was not for the Tribunal to go through the underlying evidence on an application such as this.

There was a slight delay when the appeal was notified as defective, but that was due to taking time to make sure that the re-submitted NOA was correct.

Whether or not the main reason for submitting the appeal was to enter ADR was irrelevant to the application.

The starting point was that permission should not be granted.

That someone made a mistake is not a good reason and a much stronger case needed to be put forward. There was a failure to take reasonable care. It is well established that the failure by a representative is to be treated as a failure by the Appellant.

The delay was not very short and other Tribunals had commented on particular lengths of delay in the context of particular time limits.

Even after Mr. Atkins found out that the original NOA was submitted in a defective way he took several days to file a valid one, even when he knew it was late, and could have acted more promptly. The failure of the online form was not a good reason, nor was failing to use the pdf version of the form.

There was limited prejudice to the Appellant in refusing the application because its appeal was very weak. The Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal were poorly particularised because they did not specify which consignments they related to and were extremely vague and unclear. There was also a dispute as to whether the Appellant actually held the documents on the material dates. Even if the Appellant’s appeal was not very weak on the merits it was not obviously strong.

The prejudice to the Appellant in refusing the application was limited because it amounted to the Appellant losing out on the opportunity of entering ADR. There was no right to ADR.

The Respondents would be prejudiced if the application was granted because they had to divert resources which could better be used in dealing with appeals which had been brought in a timely fashion.