TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)

The appeal was struck out under Rule 8(1), which reads:

“The proceedings…will automatically be struck out if the appellant has failed to comply with a direction that stated that failure by a party to comply with the direction would lead to the striking out of the proceedings...”

Rule 8 then provides:

“(5)

If the proceedings…have been struck out under paragraphs (1)…the appellant may apply for the proceedings…to be reinstated.

(6)

An application under paragraph (5) must be made in writing and received by the Tribunal within 28 days after the date that the Tribunal sent notification of the striking out to the appellant.”

The Tribunal’s notice informing TMS on behalf of Mr Gill that the appeal had been struck out was dated 8 January 2024. The time limit for a reinstatement application was therefore 6 February 2024. The application was filed on 13 February 2024, so was a week late. However, Rule 5(3)(a) gives the Tribunal power to extend that time limit. TMS did not ask the Tribunal to use that power, but Ms Goldring said that HMRC were “neutral” about the issue.

Taking into account the short period of delay, and in particular that Mr Gill was unaware of the strike out until he received HMRC’s letter on Saturday 10 February 2024, I find that it is in the interests of justice to allow the reinstatement application to be made late.

I first explain the approach set out in the case law, and then apply that case law to the facts of Mr Gill’s application.