![TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Ms Gill
Ms Gill
On 1 July 2025, Mr Monk emailed HMRC to say that Mr Gill wished to file witness evidence from Ms Gill, and asked that HMRC not object to that evidence being provided late. HMRC replied by return, saying they were unable to provide a substantive response without seeing the witness statement. No such statement was ever filed or served.
At the hearing, Mr Monk said that, having reviewed Ms Gill’s witness statement, it simply echoed that given by Mr Gill and he had decided not to seek the Tribunal’s permission to admit it late.
- Heading
- Introduction and summary
- The Evidence
- Evidence about the role played by Mr Monk/TMS
- Mr Gill’s evidence
- Ms Gill
- Findings of fact
- Mr Gill’s business and the assessments
- Mr Gill’s health, the Tribunal’s directions and the failures to comply
- The first postponed hearing
- The second postponed hearing
- Pre-hearing correspondence
- TMS’s lack of response
- Mr Gill’s failure to attend
- Factors to consider
- Reasons for not adjourning the hearing
- Late application to reinstate
- The case law
- The first Martland stage
- Mr Gill’s health
- Reliance on TMS
- Case law on reliance on advisers
- Application to Mr Gill’s case
- The need for time limits to be respected
- Reliance on advisers
- Prejudice to Mr Gill
- Prejudice to HMRC
- Merits
- Other Tribunal users
- Conclusions