TC09675 - [2025] UKFTT 01274 (TC)

As set out above the Upper Tribunal in Martland stated that the third (balancing) stage should take into account the particular importance of the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and for statutory time limits to be respected. However, the more recent decisions of the Upper Tribunal in Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC) (‘Medpro’) at [93] – [98] followed by Pawar v HMRC [2025] UKUT 309 (TCC) (‘Pawar’) at [84] – [94] concluded that no extra weight should be given to these ‘compliance’ factors. In Lands Luo Ltd v HMRC[2025] UKFTT 1207 (TC) (‘Lands Luo Limited’), released after Medpro and Pawar, the First-tier Tribunal at [53] – [71] (which included Lord Justice Dingemans, the Senior President of Tribunals as member of the panel) agreed with the approach in Martland. Lands Luo Limited considered Medpro but not Pawar. Medpro, Pawar and Lands Luo Limited all confirm that the three stage test in Martland should be applied.

At [70] in Lands Luo Limited the First-tier Tribunal observed that often the difference in approach to the test to be applied (ie the weight to be given to the ‘compliance’ factors) when considering whether to grant permission to bring a late appeal between Martland and Medpro would not yield a different result. I shall consider the Medpro test first and then the Martland test and if the results are different it will be necessary to discuss which approach will determine the application and why.

The arguments by both parties were very succinctly put.