![[2024] UKUT 430 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The second respondent opposes an extension, referring to the Denton like approach taken in Martland v Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC) , the approach also taken in BB v Disclosure and Bar
The second respondent opposes an extension, referring to the Denton like approach taken in Martland v Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC), the approach also taken in BB v Disclosure and Barring Service (extension of time) [2019] UKUT 366 (AAC). Those cases approach the question of an extension in three stages:
Stage 1: identify and assess the seriousness or significance of the failure to comply with the rules.
Stage 2: consider why the failure occurred i.e. was there a good reason for it
Stage 3: evaluate all the circumstances of the case.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) made on 2 August 2023 under number SC914/22/00006 was made in error of l
- Preliminary issues; Delay
- By virtue of Rule 5(3)(a) the Upper Tribunal has a discretion to extend time. The appellant has applied to extend time, but justifying such an extension is not a triviality re Salmon (deceased) [1981]
- The second respondent opposes an extension, referring to the Denton like approach taken in Martland v Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC) , the approach also taken in BB v Disclosure and Bar
- I will apply the approach in Martland and BB rather than Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, although I would not expect the two approaches typically to yield a different result
- Preliminary issues: hearing or no hearing
- The decision under appeal
- The Appeal
- Conclusions