UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/ xx /20 xx - [2025] UKUT 00255 (TCC)

Ground 1. The FTT erred in law by not considering the third stage of the process set out in Martland. Although the FTT had set out the relevant law in Martland, it is contended that:

“[t]here is no indication that the FTT carried out the balancing exercise required by Martland. There is no discussion in the FTT’s reasoning other than the delay and the reason for that delay. Indeed, there is no reference at all to “circumstances” or “balancing exercise” after FTT/[75]. This is despite both parties having made submissions on the relevant circumstances in their skeleton arguments and oral submissions. The most reasonable conclusion is that, despite having correctly directed itself, the FTT failed to apply the third stage of the approach set out in Martland. This is an error of law.”

Ground 2. The FTT erred in law by not considering whether the unusual circumstances in the appeals justified a departure from the “general rule” in Katib or, if it did consider whether a departure was justified, by concluding that it was not justified:

“The FTT Decision stated that it was unacceptable for a professional adviser to overlook the possibility of an appeal without considering whether Mr Ruprai should be held responsible for the actions of his professional adviser during a period of serious ill-health. There is no indication that the FTT considered whether, in the unusual circumstances of Mr Ruprai’s case, any failings by Mr Patel [Mr Ruprai’s professional adviser] should be regarded as failings of Mr Ruprai…This was an error of law and given the weight that the FTT attributed to Mr Patel’s actions, a highly material one.”

Ground 3. The FTT erred in law by giving insufficient reasons for its decision to refuse the late appeal applications in respect of the issues covered by the first two grounds:

“If contrary to Grounds 1 and 2, the FTT did carry out the balancing exercise required by Martland and did consider whether the general rule set out in Katib applied on these facts, it provided no (and therefore insufficient) reasons for these issues. The FTT’s conclusions are stated with no further explanation. Indeed, in respect of [Application 13510] and [Application 13511] the FTT does not even purport to give reasons, it says its reasons are “similar” to those which relate to [Application 13237] without seeking to explain which reasons were the same and which were different.”

“In the absence of a reasoned Decision, the [Appellants] are not able to challenge the FTT’s conclusion and the absence of reasons is a self-standing error of law.”

Ground 4. The general rule laid down in Katib is wrong in law and the FTT erred by applying it. The Upper Tribunal should depart from the decision in Katib. It is said that:

“An application for permission to bring a late appeal to the FTT is not analogous with the question of whether a litigant's case should be struck out for breach of an “unless” order”.