TC09483 - [2025] UKFTT 00417 (TC)

On the basis of the documents on the Tribunal file, I find the following facts:

The Appellant filed its appeal on 22 December 2023.  Due to an IT incident affecting the Tribunal online service, on 6 February 2024, the Tribunal asked the Appellant to re-file its appeal.  This appeal was re-filed by the Appellant on 28 February 2024, but not acknowledged and served by the Tribunal until 17 May 2024.  

On 17 May 2024, the Respondents were directed to file and serve their Statement of Case no later than 16 July 2024 (being 60 days from 17 May 2024).  

On 2 July 2024, the Respondents sought an extension of 30 days (until 15 August 2024) to the deadline for them to file and serve their Statement of Case.  This extension was sought on the basis that the Appellant had applied for ADR, and both parties wished to proceed along that route prior to a Statement of Case being provided.  This application was said to be with the consent of the Appellant.  The Appellant was copied into the Respondents' email, and no objection from the Appellant was received by the Tribunal.  

On 14 August 2024, the Appellant notified the Tribunal that the Appellant's application for ADR had been accepted by the Respondents on 31 July 2024. The Appellant filed an application which sought to have the appeal to stayed until:

That application did not specify a fresh deadline for the Respondents to file their Statement of Case if the ADR was unsuccessful. 

On 11 September 2024, rather than granting a stay in the form sought by the Appellant, the Tribunal issued Directions which were in the Tribunal’s usual form when the parties engage in ADR. These Directions stayed the appeal for a period so the parties could engage in ADR, but also provided a deadline for the Respondents to file their Statement of Case if ADR was unsuccessful. The Tribunal Directions of 11 September 2024 provided a deadline of 2 January 2025 for the Respondents to file and serve their Statement of Case.  

On 20 December 2024, the Respondents made an application for an extension of 57 days (until 28 February 2025) to file and serve their Statement of Case.  The grounds for this application were that the ADR had recently concluded unsuccessfully but the Respondents stated that their counsel and internal clients would not be available over the festive period so the Respondents did not consider that the deadline of 2 January 2025 could be met.  The Respondents submitted that it was in the interests of all parties that the Statement of Case addressed all relevant issues raised by the Appellant.  

On 23 December 2024, the Appellant filed a Notice of Objection to this application.  In this objection the Appellant stated that mediation meetings had been paused on 4 November 2024, for the Respondents to file their Statement of Case but that the Appellant agreed to pause the mediation meetings only because the Respondents agreed to file and serve their Statement of Case by 2 January 2025. The Appellant argued that the Respondents had already had sufficient time to file and serve their Statement of Case, and that no extension of time should be granted.  

This opposed application was not able to be referred to a judge in the few working days remaining prior to 2 January 2025.

On 7 January 2025, the Appellant applied for the Respondents to be barred from proceedings due to their failure to file their Statement of Case by 2 January 2025. More detail is set out below but, in this application, the Appellant argued that the Respondents' failure to meet the deadline of 2 January 2025 was:

In this application, the Appellant reiterated the points made in its earlier Notice of Objection, and added that the Respondents' failure to have met the 2 January 2025 deadline:

The Appellant argued that it was suffering detriment from the delay as the deadline sought by the Respondents (of 28 February 2025) was a year after the appeal had been notified to the Tribunal. The Appellant argued that it would suffer as it was liable for interest on the disputed tax. 

On 21 January 2025, the Respondents filed their objection to the Appellant's barring application, disputing that any agreement had been reached between the parties about terms or conditions for pausing the mediation.  The Respondents also noted the terms of the order previously proposed by the Appellant, and suggested that there was limited prejudice to the Appellant given the early stage of the proceedings and that the Appellant's application appeared:

On 29 January 2025, both parties were given the option of an oral hearing (which neither accepted) and the opportunity to submit further written submissions (which, again, neither accepted).  

On 28 February 2025, the Respondents filed and served their Statement of Case.