In Rafique v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 673 (TC), a case characterised by Tribunal Judge Bailey as consisting of “the FTT trying to ascertain what the Appellant is seeking to challenge”, in a lengthy judgment the FTT has dismissed the appeal against an automatic strike out of an appeal following the failure to provide documents and information as requested by two unless orders and dismissed an application to reinstate it. The use of AI and hallucinated cases was criticised by the FTT.
VALUE ADDED TAX – appellant failing to provide Tribunal with copies of decision letters he wished to appeal against or sufficient grounds of appeal – unless order issued – appellant failing to comply and suffering heart attack after date for compliance – further unless order issued, taking account of appellant’s ill health – failure to comply – appeal automatically struck out – appellant making application for reinstatement but failing to provide copy decisions or grounds as required by unless orders – whether appeal should be reinstated – no
The FTT judged that the strike out decision was “closer in nature to an administrative act than a judicial decision” and that “The Appellant has accepted he did not provide the FTT with the documents required by Judge Blackwell by the deadline imposed, despite being aware of the obligation. The strike out confirmation is a consequence that flows automatically from the Appellant’s admitted breach. For these reasons, this part of the Appellant’s application is refused.”
Considering the application for reinstatement, the FTT applied the Martland criteria as adjusted by Chappell v The Pension Regulator (meaning that in a reinstatement case the FTT judge should only “take into account the merits of the Appellant’s appeal if I conclude that those merits are either very weak or very strong.”) Judging that the “the Appellant’s (continuing) defaults can only be seen as extremely serious and significant” and that “I conclude that no good explanation has been provided for the Appellant’s breaches of the FTT directions/Unless orders”, Tribunal Judge Bailey moved on to the balancing exercise and, noting that the Appellant was still requesting additional time to comply with the directions, observed that: “if the appeal was reinstated there would be more delay and further interlocutory applications and/or an application to strike out the appeal seem inevitable. It is highly unlikely that this appeal could progress directly to a substantive hearing”. The Appellant had complained that he was being deprived of his statutory right of appeal, but the the FTT observed that “If the appeal is not reinstated that would be as a direct consequence of the Appellant’s own failure to comply with FTT Direction and two Unless orders.” The FTT concluded that:
“Even if there were to be financial consequences for the Appellant if the appeal is not reinstated, and even if those consequences were severe, they would still be the result of the Appellant’s own failure to comply with the FTT Directions and the Unless orders of Judge Perez and Judge Blackwell. Weighing all relevant factors, I have concluded that this appeal should not be reinstated.”
Noting the Appellant’s use of fabricated authorities generated by artificial intelligence, the FTT commented:
“I am not going to make a referral for a summons for contempt of court to be issued to the Appellant here because there is no evidence that the Appellant was aware previously either of the concept of hallucinated cases (although the comments of Judge Perez should have given him pause to think), or that he should check the veracity of the cases he had cited. I very much doubt the Appellant was aware that it is a contempt of court to cite fabricated law to a court or tribunal.
However, the Appellant is now aware that:
– artificial intelligence can produce fabricated authorities;
– all parties, even litigants in person, are under an obligation to check the truthfulness of any submissions they make, and of any cases they cite; and
– it is a contempt of court for fabricated authorities to be cited to a court or tribunal as if they are genuine.
If the Appellant chooses to seek permission to appeal, he is now aware that no party is permitted to rely upon fabricated authorities, and that it is his responsibility to check that any case he relies upon is both genuine and does support the propositions he says it supports.”
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/673?
Related content from Claritax Books
In Tax Appeals – Law and Practice at the FTT, tax barrister Keith Gordon analyses some 500 precedents to show how the FTT rules are applied in practice, and how taxpayers may use the tribunal system for appealing against tax decisions.
