TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)

Fecha: 08-Jul-2025

Mr Gill’s failure to attend

Mr Gill’s failure to attend

81.

HMRC had made it clear via Ms Goldring’s skeleton argument, filed seven days before the hearing, that they required Mr Gill to attend the hearing to be cross-examined on his “written account” which stood as his witness statement. However, when the hearing began at 10am, the only persons present were Mr Monk and a colleague from the same firm. Mr Monk said he had sent an email to the Tribunal explaining the reasons; a short adjournment was directed so that I and HMRC could locate that email.

82.

It had been sent at 21.43 the day before the hearing, and included the following:

“I confirm that Mr Gill will not be attending tomorrow's hearing (8th of July).
Having further discussed Mr Gill's health with his daughter this evening, Mr Gill's health is such that he is simply unable to participate in the hearing.
Whilst I understand that the Tribunal may reasonably require medical evidence by way of a doctors' letter further outlining Mr Gill's current ill health, I am informed that this may take up to 2 weeks to obtain.
As all parties are aware, proceedings have already been postponed on the basis of Mr Gill's significant ill health - in part consisting of heart failure and end stage kidney failure. We no not believe that there will now be any significant improvement in Mr Gill's condition.
As such, and on the basis that Mr Gill recently provided a ‘written account’ as directed by the Tribunal, we do not propose to postpone matters any further and intend to proceed with the hearing in Mr Gill's absence.”

83.

Mr Monk confirmed orally that no adjournment was being sought. Ms Goldring said that HMRC also considered it was in the interests of justice to continue with the hearing. However, as I explained to the parties, I had the following concerns:

(1)

TMS had remained on the record as Mr Gill’s representative throughout; the firm had thus received the directions, the warning letter and the Unless Order, but had not responded.

(2)

The Tribunal had not copied any correspondence to Mr Gill: in particular the directions of 6 June 2023, the warning letter and the subsequent Unless Order had been sent only to TMS.

(3)

Mr Gill appeared not to realise that in deciding the reinstatement application, a key issue was the role played by TMS. Mr Gill’s witness evidence made only a brief mention of the firm’s involvement.

(4)

There was limited other evidence before the Tribunal as to the relationship between TMS and Mr Gill, in particular, as to what instructions had been given, when payment had been made, and why TMS had failed to take steps which would have prevented the Unless Order from being issued and/or enforced.

84.

Ms Goldring’s skeleton argument included the following sentence

“the Respondents note that TM Sterling are currently representing the Appellant which suggests that they do not consider there to be any conflict of interest.”

85.

On the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, and taking into account the failure of TMS to provide any witness or documentary evidence as to why they had not complied with the Tribunal’s directions, together with the fact that the appeal had been struck out because of that compliance failure, it was clearly possible that TMS were conflicted. As a result, I directed a short adjournment and asked a Tribunal clerk to contact Ms Gill to confirm as a preliminary point whether she and her father had been aware of today’s hearing. The clerk spoke to Ms Gill and summarised the conversation in an email, which said:

“ Mr Gill had received the letter notifying him of the hearing.
 Mr Gill is too ill to attend; he has been advised by doctors to avoid stress due to a weak heart and is currently sleeping.
 They [Mr and Ms Gill] did advise the rep that he was too ill to attend.
 Originally the daughter did want to attend, but there was some confusion between them and the rep due to the bundles being issued and them thinking there was no need etc.
 If needed the daughter could attend.
 The daughter asked to be kept informed either way.”

86.

When the hearing reconvened, I read that email to the parties. I said that one option would be to adjourn the hearing to allow Mr and Ms Gill to consider whether to instruct a different firm, and for the Tribunal at a subsequent hearing to consider any further submissions together with evidence about the relationship between TMS and Mr Gill during the relevant period. I gave Mr Monk and Ms Goldring time to consider that option, but on reconvening they both said that they would leave it for me to decide.