TC09512 - [2025] UKFTT 00522 (TC)

This matter was listed for hearing for 10 and 11 April 2025. On 27 March 2025 the Appellants served a document which was headed “Witness statement”. That document was jointly signed by the Appellants and referenced documents which had, in the main, previously been provided to HMRC. No witness statements had been previously served in compliance with the Tribunal’s case management directions. The document was not served with any application for witness evidence to be admitted late. We agreed to hear any application for witness evidence to be admitted late at the start of the hearing.

At 23:37 on 9 April 2025 the Tribunal received an application to postpone the hearing. The basis for the application was that Md Shahabuddin (the Appellants’ representative) had been unwell in the week leading up to the application being made and had concluded that he was too unwell to attend. The application indicated that Mr Hossin would attend the hearing with a copy of the application. I refused the application on the papers when I saw it early on the morning of 10 April 2025 and invited that it might be remade at the start of the hearing and indicated that in order for it to be granted we would need to renewed application to be accompanied by medical evidence.

Mr Husaain attended the hearing without the Appellants; he renewed the application for postponement. He explained that Mr Shahabuddin had been to the doctors that morning and and been issued with a prescription, but no doctor’s note. Mr Hossin also explained that NN was feeling unwell, and that SA had stayed at home to look after their children. He indicated that he had little experience of the matter but that if the hearing was not postponed, his instruction was to remain at the hearing and to contribute where he could.

In the absence of medical evidence concerning Mr Shahabuddin, and with no satisfactory explanation of the absence of the Appellants (who should, presumably, have arranged childcare for the hearing given that both Appellants were expected to attend the hearing) we refused the application for postponement. We considered it to be in the interests of justice and in accordance with the overriding objective that a matter concerning Assessments and Penalties issued 5 years ago should be heard.

It is our view that Mr Hossin was placed in a very difficult position by his employer and his client, and he managed his contribution to the hearing very well in all the circumstances. However, on the basis that Mr Hossin was present and was instructed to participate we did not need to determine whether to proceed in the Appellants’ absence under rule 30 Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.

Having determined to proceed we considered whether to admit the document provided on 27 March 2025 as a witness statement. We refused to admit it in that capacity for the following reasons:

We did, however, determine to treat those parts of the document which represented submission as the Appellants’ skeleton argument (no other document representing a skeleton argument having been served despite directions requiring one to be served no later than 21 days before the hearing).