TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)

I find as a fact on the basis of the foregoing, that between 7 March 2023 and 13 January 2024 TMS did not respond to any correspondence, whether from HMRC or from the Tribunal, despite numerous communications having being sent to the firm during that period by both HMRC and the Tribunal.

Neither HMRC nor the Tribunal communicated with Mr Gill. That was because they were following Rule 11(4) of the Tribunal Rules. That Rule is headed “representatives” and so far as relevant reads:

“(1)

A party may appoint a representative (whether a legal representative or not) to represent that party in the proceedings.

(2)

…

(3)

Anything permitted or required to be done by a party under these Rules, a practice direction or a direction may be done by the representative of that party, except signing a witness statement.

(4)

A person who receives due notice of the appointment of a representative—

(a)

must provide to the representative any document which is required to be provided to the represented party, and need not provide that document to the represented party; and

(b)

may assume that the representative is and remains authorised as such until they receive written notification that this is not so from the representative or the represented party.”

I also find as facts that after the Notice of Appeal was filed with the Tribunal, Mr Monk/TMS did not:

The basis for TMS’s first postponement application was that the firm was seeking to “fully understand” the reasons for the “breakdown in communication” with Mr and Ms Gill; Mr Monk added that this was “a matter which is of significant importance to the strength of Mr Gill’s reinstatement application”. However, no subsequent application was made to file and serve witness evidence or documents relating to that issue, and there is no reference to it in TMS’s second postponement application.

When Judge Poole allowed that application, he also gave further time for a witness statement to be filed and served by TMS, see §63. That gave the firm the opportunity to explain the reasons for their failures to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and/or for their failure to inform the Tribunal that they were no longer representing Mr Gill (which would have meant that the Tribunal would communicate directly with him, so he would have been aware of the directions and the Unless Order). But no witness statement or related documents were filed.

The only evidence before me was the following:

On the basis of that evidence, I find as facts that:

As noted at §15, the reinstatement application and TMS’s skeleton argument contained various assertions about the role played by Mr Monk/TMS. As Mr Monk accepted at the hearing, that was not evidence.

However, for completeness I record that the reinstatement application said that after February 2023, TMS “received no communication from Mr Gill and representation in respect of the case ceased”, and that “this instruction ceased in March 2023”. However, the skeleton, said that:

“T M Sterling continued to hold authority to act and reasonably awaited contact – this encompassed a period after our original instruction ceased as a result of the absence of adequate instructions and associated funds.”

The skeleton is thus inconsistent with the reinstatement application, and with Mr Gill’s evidence that (a) he was in contact with the firm in August 2023, which was around two months after the directions had been issued, and (b) he had paid TMS all the money required by that firm, making a final payment in that month and (c) he had tried to contact TMS (which would not be the position if they were no longer instructed).

In addition, the statement that the instruction “ceased” is also inconsistent with: