TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)

Parts of the UT’s judgment in Katib were set out earlier in this decision, including their finding at [56] that in the context of the second Martland stage, reliance on advisers is unlikely to amount to a “good reason” for missing the statutory deadlines. The UT continued in the same paragraph:

“…when considering the third stage of the evaluation required by Martland, we should recognise that exceptions to the general rule are possible and that, if Mr Katib was misled by his advisers, that is a relevant consideration.”

However, the UT went on to find that, for the same reasons as those relating to the second stage, the behaviour of Mr Katib’s adviser had no “real weight” at the third stage. In evaluating this factor in Mr Gill’s case, I find that it was reasonable for him to rely on TMS for the same reasons as set out at §119 to §126, and accord that factor considerable weight.