TC09561 - [2025] UKFTT 00761 (TC)

we concluded that the delay was serious and significant (both in relation to the delay from 17 March to 30 July 2023 and even more so if we are looking at the delay to 28 March 2024);

the reasons given for the delay were unsupported by documentary evidence and Mr Rahman’s evidence was not entirely clear or consistent (unsurprising given the passage of time);

in relation to the delay to 30 July 2023, even if Mr Rahman had tried to make contact with DBF in order to challenge their decision, he seemed to us to have shown a distinct lack of urgency or vigour in pursuing the matter;

in relation to the delay to 28 March 2024, Mr Rahman was busy with other matters, which does not seem a good reason for the delay;

it is important that time limits are respected and DBF will suffer prejudice given the need to reopen this case and other taxpayers will suffer from resources being devoted to considering this matter;

the merits of Mr Rahman’s appeal. The UT said in Martland that there is "much greater prejudice for an applicant to lose the opportunity of putting forward a really strong case than a very weak one". The merits of the appeal may therefore be a relevant factor in the balancing exercise. However, the UT also said that the Tribunal should not "descend into a detailed analysis" of the merits of the matter. Mr Rahman’s grounds for requesting a review were that in summary he was a UAE resident. We did not take evidence on the merits of Mr Rahman’s case, but we noted that his address in the papers we were given was in the UK and that in his evidence he referred to travelling from the UK via Gatwick in November 2023 to go on holiday. All of this pointed to his residence being in the UK, which suggested the merits of his case might be weak;

the interests of justice do not automatically result in the grant of extensions of time to appeal;

if the application is not granted, Mr Rahman will lose the ability to challenge the original decision;

if the application is granted, Mr Rahman will gain the chance to have the Original Decision reviewed, but that does not mean that the Original Decision will be changed;

there is public interest in the finality of litigation and prejudice will be caused to DBF if it is required to reopen a matter believed concluded;

the starting point is that permission should not be granted unless the FTT is satisfied on balance that it should be.