Background
Najat Hamasala owned a car wash business that became the subject of an HMRC enquiry. HMRC issued a closure notice, discovery assessments, and penalties for late filing. Mr. Hamasala’s accountant failed to file timely appeals to the First-tier Tribunal, instead attempting to write to HMRC for extensions. The accountant had medical issues and sent correspondence to an incorrect HMRC email address.
The appeals ultimately filed in June 2024 were severely delayed: six years and nine months late for the closure notice and assessments, and over five years late for the penalties. The First-tier Tribunal refused permission for Mr. Hamasala to proceed with these late appeals. Mr. Hamasala then sought permission to appeal that FTT refusal to the Upper Tribunal, arguing his accountant’s poor health, language barriers, financial hardship, and HMRC’s non-responsiveness justified the delay.
Judge Jeanette Zaman considered whether the FTT erred in law by refusing permission for late appeals. The Upper Tribunal applied the legal framework established in Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC and HMRC v Medpro Healthcare Ltd (Court of Appeal), which requires balancing the length of delay, reasons for delay, and other circumstances against the importance of respecting statutory time limits.
The Court’s Holding
The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal. Judge Zaman held that the FTT properly applied the governing legal test and did not commit an error of law. The court found that while Mr. Hamasala’s accountant experienced medical difficulties, the law treats adviser failures as the responsibility of the litigant under the binding precedent in Katib. The fact that Mr. Hamasala became aware in May 2019 that in-time appeals had not been made, yet waited five more years before filing appeals to the tribunal, was fatal to his case.
The court rejected Mr. Hamasala’s various arguments: challenges to HMRC’s calculations were not obviously strong enough to affect the balancing exercise; his reliance on his accountant fell within the general rule on adviser failures; HMRC’s financial consequences are a common grievance that does not outweigh time limits; and the FTT properly assessed that Mr. Hamasala was aware of the tribunal process through HMRC’s letters, despite English not being his first language. The FTT’s conclusion that the “significant and serious delay” precluded late appeals was an evaluative judgment that should not be second-guessed by the appellate tribunal.
The Upper Tribunal noted that even if permission to appeal had been granted, this would not guarantee permission for late appeals or success on the merits, and Mr. Hamasala could have faced adverse costs orders in the Upper Tribunal.
Key Takeaways
- Adviser failures—including missed deadlines and procedural errors—are generally attributed to the litigant, not treated as excusing circumstances for late appeals.
- Appellate courts should be reluctant to substitute their judgment for a tribunal’s evaluative decision on whether to grant permission for late appeals, particularly when the tribunal heard the witness and considered all evidence.
- Awareness of the appeal process coupled with five years of inaction undermines a late appeal application, even if the intervening communications were directed at HMRC rather than the tribunal.
- Financial hardship and language barriers, while sympathetic, are insufficient on their own to override respect for statutory time limits absent special circumstances.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural time limits in tax disputes and the reluctance of appellate courts to revisit evaluative judgments made by tribunals that heard the evidence. It establishes that the Medpro framework—which balances efficiency and proportionate litigation costs against fairness—will be applied consistently, and that taxpayers bear responsibility for their advisers’ failures. The judgment clarifies that continued correspondence with HMRC does not substitute for proper appeal procedures and does not preserve a taxpayer’s position where the statutory deadline has passed.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the critical importance of calendar management on time-sensitive tax appeals and demonstrates that even sympathetic circumstances—medical difficulties, language barriers, apparent HMRC non-responsiveness—will not excuse delays of six years or more. The case also signals judicial deference to first-instance tribunals’ factual assessments and evaluative judgments, making permission to appeal a significant hurdle in tax appellate practice.