Parwinder Gill v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 930 (TC)

“Why the adviser failed and how they led their client to continue to rely on them is not relevant to the Martland analysis, unless the client can show that they did whatever a reasonable taxpayer in that situation would have done (which would generally be to make sufficient efforts to keep tabs on the adviser and make sure that matters were on track).”

“The Appellant is advised that the Tribunal will at the hearing require detailed evidence of the reasons for the Appellant’s failures to comply with the Tribunal’s directions which led to his appeal being struck out in the first place. A written account of those reasons, signed by the Appellant and delivered to both the Tribunal and HMRC at least 3 weeks before the hearing date, would assist his case greatly. If the Appellant also relies on the evidence of others (for example his representative), including any further medical evidence, all such evidence should be delivered to the Tribunal and HMRC by the same time.”

“We also refer to Direction 5 of the Tribunal’s directions dated 13 March 2025, which provided the Appellant with an opportunity to submit a written account of reasons explaining the failure to comply with previous Tribunal directions. The Tribunal noted that such an account ‘would assist his case greatly’. This written account was to be provided at least 3 weeks before the hearing. To date, we have not received this account. We therefore invite the Appellant to provide both us and the Tribunal with the written account by close of business on Wednesday, 25 June 2025, to allow us sufficient time to consider and, if necessary, respond to it in our Skeleton Argument. For completeness, we also note that Direction 5 required the Appellant to serve any evidence on which he intends to rely - including further medical evidence or evidence from his representative - at least 3 weeks before the hearing. As no such evidence has been served, we proceed on the basis that the Appellant does not intend to rely on any further evidence.”

“HMRC’s ‘Penalty Explanation’ letter, dated 22nd July 2022, offers very little insight in support of its assertion that the purported loss of tax was brought about as a result of deliberate behaviour – and certainly not to the extent required to discharge the burden of proof…”

“HMRC currently has 60 days from 4th February 2023 to provide its Statement of Case and we will be sure to inform you as soon as we receive this. I look forward to speaking with you in due course.”

“As a starting point I propose that we agree to dispense with the requirement to serve a List of Documents [“LoDs”], and that by no later than 5 July 2023 the Respondents shall serve all witness evidence. I look forward to hearing from you soon regarding the above proposal, and liaising with you to see if we can agree further directions.”

“I have tried over a few weeks to contact you by telephone, email and voicemail, to see if we can agree directions in this case, but there has been no response. I have drafted the attached proposed directions. Please let me know your views on the proposed directions. If I have not heard from you by 5pm on Friday 26th April 2023, I will apply to the Tribunal by email (and copy you in), and invite them to make the attached directions. I look forward to hearing from you shortly.”

“The Respondents complied with direction 1 regarding ‘Respondents Witness Statements’ on 18 August 2023. The Appellant has not complied with direction 2 regarding ‘Appellant’s Witness Statements’, which was due to be complied with by 15 September 2023. As a result of the Appellant’s non-compliance with direction 2, the Respondents are not currently in a position to comply with direction 3 regarding ‘Listing Information’ which was due to be complied with today, 29 September 2023. The Appellant’s Representative has not responded to previous correspondence sent to them by the Respondents regarding proposed applications and service of the Respondents’ evidence. The Respondents await further directions from the Tribunal.”

“The Tribunal refers to the Directions sent on 6 June 2023, a copy of which is enclosed. The Tribunal does not appear to have received notice that your witness statement(s) were served in compliance with Direction 2, which were due on 15 September 2023. It is important that each party to an appeal discloses in advance to the other party the evidence of the witnesses on which they rely, so that both parties can properly prepare for the hearing. If, therefore, you do not comply within 14 days with the direction to provide statements by your witnesses, a Judge may issue a direction which may lead to the striking out of the appeal on the basis that your failure to disclose the evidence on which you rely is unfair to the other party. Please remember that where an appellant intends to rely on his or her own evidence, a witness statement by the appellant must still be provided. You should now immediately provide your witness statement(s) (with an application for the witness statements to be admitted out of time) or tell the Tribunal (if correct) that you are not calling any witnesses to give evidence.”

“The Appellant having failed to comply with the Directions issued on 6 June 2023 to provide his witness statements by the due dates or at all and having failed to reply to the letter from the Tribunal dated 6 October 2023 within the times stipulated therein or at all the Tribunal DIRECTS that: UNLESS the Appellant no later than 5pm on 06 December 2023 1. confirms in writing to the Tribunal an intention to proceed with the appeal, and 2. complies with the Directions issued on 6 June 2023 to provide his witness statements and, at the same time, makes an application to be permitted to comply out of time, then these proceedings WILL be STRUCK OUT without further reference to the parties.”

“You do not appear to have complied with the Directions (copy enclosed) and therefore, in accordance with these Directions, and rule 8(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, this appeal was automatically struck out on the day after the date specified in these directions. You have the right to apply for the proceedings to be reinstated but such an application must be made in writing and received by the Tribunal within 28 days from the date of this letter. Such an application should be supported by reasons, including an explanation of why the direction was not complied with.”

“We received a letter dated 7th February requesting payment be made immediately. On the letter it stated the appeal had been struck out because directions of 6/6/2023 and 22/11/2023 had not been complied with. Howeverwe were quite shocked seeing this letter as we had not received anything and nothing from those dates. We were still waiting for the appeal date? Also we have tried to contact TM Sterling and unfortunately we have not been able to get through to them. We are not sure if the letters were sent to them but normally my dad does receive copies of everything? We would be very grateful if you could kindly call me on [number] at your earliest convenience, please. As we really did want the chance for an independent review and chance to appeal.”

“so that we may fully understand matters pertaining to the original breakdown in communication which lead to us being unable to fulfil our initial instruction – the underlying case to which this reinstatement application relates. This is, in our view, a matter which is of significant importance to the strength of Mr Gill’s reinstatement application.”

“I note that HMRC provided a response to the Application on 7 March 2025, which I have considered. On my instructions, the Tribunal staff telephoned the Appellant’s representative to enquire about the additional medical evidence referred to at the end of the Application, and spoke to him on 10 March but were informed that no further evidence could yet be provided ashe had not yet been able to speak to the Appellant’s daughter. I am informed that nothing further has been heard by the Tribunal. I note that there has been a previous postponement at the Appellant’s request on medical grounds, which was not objected to by the Respondents. That hearing was supposed to take place in July 2024. In view of the obviously serious and worsened nature of the Appellant’s medical issues, however, and the fact that there is clearly an acute episode occurring at present, I am prepared to allow the Application, but he should realise that it is extremely unlikely that any further postponements will be granted unless any application is supported by written medical evidence.”

“We also refer to Direction 5 of the Tribunal’s directions dated 13 March 2025, which provided the Appellant with an opportunity to submit a written account of reasons explaining the failure to comply with previous Tribunal directions. The Tribunal noted that such an account “would assist his case greatly.”

“This comprised Mr Gill’s account of his medical issues and other events in his life. There was no evidence specific to the reasons for failing to comply with directions which led to the appeal being struck out in the first place. Further, no evidence was served to suggest the Appellant relied on the evidence of others, for his example his representative and no further independent medical evidence was served. The Respondents require Mr Gill to attend to give evidence regarding the account recently provided on 25 June 2025. By way of example, the Respondents wish to explore the inconsistencies noted as to the date instruction ceased. The Respondents note the general comment in (SB/67) that the personal and health issues meant that he “could not even think of dealing with any other matter” and wish to explore this in relation to the non-compliance in this case. The Respondents note that no further medical evidence has been served in accordance with direction 5 of 13 March 2025. See also the Respondents’ email 7 March 2025 requesting up to date medical evidence regarding fitness to attend. In In the absence of this, it is anticipated that Mr Gill intends to attend the hearing and can give evidence.”

“(1) A party may appoint a representative (whether a legal representative or not) to represent that party in the proceedings. (2) … (3) Anything permitted or required to be done by a party under these Rules, a practice direction or a direction may be done by the representative of that party, except signing a witness statement. (4) A person who receives due notice of the appointment of a representative— (a) must provide to the representative any document which is required to be provided to the represented party, and need not provide that document to the represented party; and (b) may assume that the representative is and remains authorised as such until they receive written notification that this is not so from the representative or the represented party.” (a) must provide to the representative any document which is required to be provided to the represented party, and need not provide that document to the represented party; and (b) may assume that the representative is and remains authorised as such until they receive written notification that this is not so from the representative or the represented party.”

“T M Sterling continued to hold authority to act and reasonably awaited contact – this encompassed a period after our original instruction ceased as a result of the absence of adequate instructions and associated funds.”

“I confirm that Mr Gill will not be attending tomorrow's hearing (8th of July).Having further discussed Mr Gill's health with his daughter this evening, Mr Gill's health is such that he is simply unable to participate in the hearing. Whilst I understand that the Tribunal may reasonably require medical evidence by way of a doctors' letter further outlining Mr Gill's current ill health, I am informed that this may take up to 2 weeks to obtain. As all parties are aware, proceedings have already been postponed on the basis of Mr Gill's significant ill health - in part consisting of heart failure and end stage kidney failure. We no not believe that there will now be any significant improvement in Mr Gill's condition. As such, and on the basis that Mr Gill recently provided a ‘written account’ as directed by the Tribunal, we do not propose to postpone matters any further and intend to proceed with the hearing in Mr Gill's absence.”

“ Mr Gill had received the letter notifying him of the hearing.  Mr Gill is too ill to attend; he has been advised by doctors to avoid stress due to a weak heart and is currently sleeping.  They [Mr and Ms Gill] did advise the rep that he was too ill to attend.  Originally the daughter did want to attend, but there was some confusion between them and the rep due to the bundles being issued and them thinking there was no need etc.  If needed the daughter could attend.  The daughter asked to be kept informed either way.”  The daughter asked to be kept informed either way.”

“Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes— (a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties; (b) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; (c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings; (d) using any special expertise of the Tribunal effectively; and (e) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues.”

“The proceedings…will automatically be struck out if the appellant has failed to comply with a direction that stated that failure by a party to comply with the direction would lead to the striking out of the proceedings...”

“(5) If the proceedings…have been struck out under paragraphs (1)…the appellant may apply for the proceedings…to be reinstated. (6) An application under paragraph (5) must be made in writing and received by the Tribunal within 28 days after the date that the Tribunal sent notification of the striking out to the appellant.”

“(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need – (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.”

“The clear message emerging from the cases – particularised in Denton and similar cases and implicitly endorsed in BPP – is that in exercising judicial discretions generally, particular importance is to be given to the need for ‘litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost’, and ‘to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders’. We see no reason why the principles embodied in this message should not apply to applications to admit late appeals just as much as to applications for relief from sanctions, though of course this does not detract from the general injunction which continues to appear in CPR rule 3.9 to ‘consider all the circumstances of the case’.”

“Of course, the applicant may in some cases be able to satisfy the court that the delay, although substantial, has not had any practical effect on the course of the proceedings, but the longer the delay, the less likely it is that he will be able to do so…One reason for limiting the time for filing a notice of appeal is to promote finality in litigation. Parties need to know where they stand. Delay of the kind that occurred in this case undermines that objective.”

“Ordinarily this court should not distinguish between the litigant himself and his advisers. There are good reasons why the court should not: firstly, if anyone is to suffer for the failure of the solicitor it is better that it be the client than another party to the litigation; secondly, the disgruntled client may in appropriate cases have his remedies in damages or in respect of the wasted costs; thirdly, it seems to me that it would become a charter for the incompetent…were this court to allow almost impossible investigations in apportioning blame between solicitor and counsel on the one hand, or between themselves and their client on the other. The basis of the rule is that orders of the court must be observed and the court is entitled to expect that its officers and counsel who appear before it are more observant of that duty even than the litigant himself.”

“should cease to be a man by making a declaration to that effect to enable Mr Bridger to communicate to the world that the Appellant was dead, that there was plenty of time to deal with an enforcement notice as the Bills of Exchange Act governed the counting of the time limit to do so.”

“We accept HMRC’s general point that, in most cases, when the FTT is considering an application for permission to make a late appeal, failings by a litigant’s advisers should be regarded as failings of the litigant.”

“It is precisely because of the importance of complying with statutory time limits that, when considering applications for permission to make a late appeal, failures by a litigant’s adviser should generally be treated as failures by the litigant.”

“…to start with the general rule that the failure of Mr Bridger to advise Mr Katib of the deadlines for making appeals, or to submit timely appeals on Mr Katib’s behalf, is unlikely to amount to a ‘good reason’ for missing those deadlines when considering the second stage of the evaluation required by Martland.”

“…the core of Mr Katib’s complaint is that Mr Bridger was incompetent, did not give proper advice, failed to appeal on time and told Mr Katib that matters were in hand when they were not. In other words, he did not do his job. That core complaint is, unfortunately, not as uncommon as it should be. It may be that the nature of the incompetence is rather more striking, if not spectacular, than one normally sees, but that makes no difference in these circumstances. It cannot be the case that a greater degree of adviser incompetence improves one’s chances of an appeal, either by enabling the client to distance himself from the activity or otherwise.”

“A client will always rely on their advisers, but their adviser’s failings are still laid at their door. Why the adviser failed and how they led their client to continue to rely on them is not relevant to the Martland analysis, unless the client can show that they did whatever a reasonable taxpayer in that situation would have done (which would generally be to make sufficient efforts to keep tabs on the adviser and make sure that matters were on track). Mr Uddin lost because he did not demonstrate more than a cursory interest in what was (not) going on, he had not done what a reasonable taxpayer in his position would be expected to do…”

“…when considering the third stage of the evaluation required by Martland, we should recognise that exceptions to the general rule are possible and that, if Mr Katib was misled by his advisers, that is a relevant consideration.”