“The first stage is to identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the "failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order" which engages rule 3.9(1). If the breach is neither serious nor significant, the court is unlikely to need to spend much time on the second and third stages. The second stage is to consider why the default occurred. The third stage is to evaluate "all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable [the court] to deal justly with the application including [factors (a) and (b)]."” 12. Miss Vicary contends that a six month delay in filing a Notice of Appeal is a serious breach; that the reasons given are inadequate – the3 October 2014 letter from HMRC clearly stated the options available also, Eurograph is a limited company and there is no evidence of the health of its director or why he was the only person who could lodge a Notice of Appeal; additionally, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, she contends that Eurograph failed to properly pursue the matter with due regard. Although the appeal involves a significant sum, citing the above passage from BPP , Miss Vicary says that I should not tolerate a “shoddy attitude to delay” and HMRC should be entitled to treat the matter as having been concluded. 13. Mrs Debono, for Eurograph, accepted that the appeal had not been made in time. She explained that its director, Mr Rahim had not been in good health and unable to comply with the statutory time limit and referred me to the3 October 2014 letter from HMRC which was addressed to Mr Rahim. It stated: “On11 June 2014 you replied to Officer Stephenson stating that you had undergone surgery in April and had not been in the office for some time. … Officer Stephenson replied the same day stating that she appreciated you have been out of your office; however, you are expected to have procedures in place to cover sick absences …” 14. Mrs Debono also referred to Eurograph’s advisers at the time the C18 was issued who, although they had made a timely request for a review, had not gone on to file a Notice of Appeal within the statutory timeframe when the decision to issue the C18 was upheld on3 October 2014 . She submits that, in the circumstances, the appeal should be admitted notwithstanding it was out of time. 15. In Data Select Ltd v HMRC[2012] UKUT 187 (TCC) Morgan J, at [34], said: “Applications for extensions of time limits of various kinds are commonplace and the approach to be adopted is well established. As a general rule, when a court or tribunal is asked to extend a relevant time limit, the court or tribunal asks itself the following 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 an extension of time? and (5) what will be the consequences for the parties of a refusal to extend time. The court or tribunal then makes its decision in the light of the answers to those questions.” 16. The purpose of the time limits is to provide certainty and avoid delay in litigation. As Judge Bishopp said in Leeds City Council v HMRC[2014] UKUT 350 (TCC) at [24] the purpose of the time limit: “… is to require a party asserting a right to do so promptly, and to afford his opponent the assurance that, after the limit has expired, no claim will be made.” 17. The length of the delay in this case is almost six months, the appeal should have been made by2 November 2014 but was received by the Tribunal on29 April 2015 . 18. The reason or explanation advanced to explain the delay, similar to the second stage in the Denton approach, is that Mr Rahim was unwell and unable to file the Notice of Appeal. Additionally, there is the apparent failure of Eurograph’s then advisers to do so on its behalf within the required timescale. However, there was no medical evidence or explanation of why Mr Rahim undergoing surgery in April 2014 meant that Eurograph was unable to file a Notice of Appeal in October of that year especially as a timely request for a review had been made following the issue of the C18 on24 June 2014 . 19. As for the consequence of granting or not granting an extension of time to appeal or directing the appeal be struck out, it is clear that Eurograph will suffer a detrimental effect by not being permitted to continue with its appeal. However, as the Senior President observed in BPP , “The interests of justice are not just in terms of the effect on the parties in a particular case but also the impact of the non-compliance on the wider system.” 20. The decision whether or not to strike out the appeal or give permission to bring an appeal out of time is essentially a balancing exercise. In reaching a conclusion it is necessary to have regard to the overriding objective of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 to deal with cases “fairly and justly”