“An appeal may be made after the end of the period specified … if the tribunal gives permission to do so.”
“… briefly, we consider the main points to be that: · even if Tribunals are not required to follow the full requirements of the latest guidance given to the higher courts in terms of seeking to ensure much stricter adherence to time limits and other directions, in order to ensure the efficient and most cost-effective conduct of litigation, we must certainly pay some regard to that intended stricter adherence to such matters; · as Tribunals, we are entitled to approach matters slightly more flexibly than the higher courts are now encouraged and directed to do; · we must certainly not, however, allow litigation to be side-tracked by other parties in litigation seeking to rely on, and exploit, trivial procedural steps that their opponents may have failed to address; and · in considering generally how to deal with late applications (for instance to bring an appeal, as in this case) we should still address the list of points summarised by Mr. Justice Morgan in Data Select . Those points are that we should address the questions: (1) What is the purpose of the time limit? (2) How long was the delay? (3) Is there a good explanation for the delay? (4) What will be the consequences for the parties of a refusal to extend time or the grant of such an extension? · We also consider it appropriate in this case to pay some regard to whether we consider that the Applicant was likely to have been able to raise valid and compelling points, should an appeal proceed, particularly because it seemed that the tax and penalties being imposed would be a serious matter for the particular appellant; and · It is also relevant to pay some regard to the whole conduct of the enquiries, and to the issue of whether there have been repeated delays, non-cooperation and failures to advance points, arguments and explanations at many earlier times.”