TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)

On 23 June 2025, HMRC emailed the Tribunal and Mr Monk; the email included the following paragraphs (again, emboldening in original):

“We also refer to Direction 5 of the Tribunal’s directions dated 13 March 2025, which provided the Appellant with an opportunity to submit a written account of reasons explaining the failure to comply with previous Tribunal directions. The Tribunal noted that such an account “would assist his case greatly.” This written account was to be provided at least 3 weeks before the hearing. To date, we have not received this account.

We therefore invite the Appellant to provide both us and the Tribunal with the written account by close of business on Wednesday, 25 June 2025, to allow us sufficient time to consider and, if necessary, respond to it in our Skeleton Argument.

For completeness, we also note that Direction 5 required the Appellant to serve any evidence on which he intends to rely—including further medical evidence or evidence from his representative—at least 3 weeks before the hearing. As no such evidence has been served, we proceed on the basis that the Appellant does not intend to rely on any further evidence.

We would welcome receipt of the written account by Wednesday, 25 June 2025. If we do not hear from the Appellant by that date, we will proceed to finalise and file our Skeleton Argument and hearing bundles accordingly.”

By an email timed at 23.22 on 25 June 2025, and, Mr Monk filed and served Mr Gills’ “written account”. Mr Monk said that the delay was due to Mr Gill having to attend hospital for dialysis treatment.

On 24 June and 27 June, HMRC contacted TMS about the hearing bundles, but received no response.

On 1 July 2025, in accordance with Judge Poole’s Directions, HMRC filed and served their skeleton argument, drafted by Ms Goldring. In relation to Mr Gill’s “written account” the skeleton says (emboldening in original):

“This comprised Mr Gill’s account of his medical issues and other events in his life. There was no evidence specific to the reasons for failing to comply with directions which led to the appeal being struck out in the first place. Further, no evidence was served to suggest the Appellant relied on the evidence of others, for his example his representative and no further independent medical evidence was served. The Respondents require Mr Gill to attend to give evidence regarding the account recently provided on 25 June 2025. By way of example, the Respondents wish to explore the inconsistencies noted as to the date instruction ceased. The Respondents note the general comment in (SB/67) that the personal and health issues meant that he “could not even think of dealing with any other matter” and wish to explore this in relation to the non-compliance in this case. The Respondents note that no further medical evidence has been served in accordance with direction 5 of 13 March 2025. See also the Respondents’ email 7 March 2025 requesting up to date medical evidence regarding fitness to attend. In In the absence of this, it is anticipated that Mr Gill intends to attend the hearing and can give evidence.”

Mr Monk served a skeleton argument on the same day, in compliance with the Directions. The submissions there set out as to the reasons for the failure relate entirely to Mr Gill’s medical conditions.