In the case of Benson & Ors v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 565 (TC), further to the earlier appeals (see the Claritax News story), the FTT has struck out a cost application for lack of authority and refused permission to make late applications in respect of the remaining cost applications.
PAYE and National Insurance Contributions – application to Tribunal for permission to make late appeal to HMRC – refused by Tribunal – applicant subsequently making late application to Tribunal for costs – whether application for extension of time for costs application should be allowed – no
VAT – appeal to Tribunal – withdrawn by appellant – appellant subsequently making late application to Tribunal for costs – whether application for extension of time for costs application should be allowed – no – application dismissed
The FTT summarised the position as follows:
“The underlying proceedings in respect of which costs are sought, consisted of the following:
– an application by Mr Benson seeking the Tribunal’s permission to make a late appeal to HMRC against a Notice of Requirement (‘NOR’) to give security for PAYE and NICs;
– a substantive in-time appeal by Really Local Group (Broadway) Limited (‘RL’) against a NOR to give security for VAT, and a substantive late appeal by RL against a NOR for security for PAYE and NICs.
– an application by Peckham Levels Limited (‘PLL’) seeking the Tribunal’s permission to make a late appeal to HMRC against a NOR to give security for PAYE and NICs;
– a substantive appeal by PLL against a NOR to give security for VAT;”
The FTT summarised its decision as follows:
“- the costs application is struck out insofar as it purports to relate to PLL, on the basis that there is no evidence that the agent making the costs application had the authority from PLL’s administrators to act on behalf of PLL;
– Mr Benson and RL are both refused an extension of time to make their application for costs. Therefore, the substantive costs application is not admitted.
– as the substantive costs applications have not been admitted for consideration, it is not necessary for me to consider HMRC’s application that the costs applications should be struck out under Tribunal Rule 8(3)(c).”
The FTT had considered the late application for costs on Martland grounds and had concluded that:
“Mr Benson and RL have not provided a good reason for any of their serious and significant delay. The obvious weakness of their costs application counts against Mr Benson and RL being given permission to make their application out of time. There is greater prejudice to HMRC and other Tribunal users if permission is given than the prejudice which Mr Benson and RL might suffer if permission is not given. Also, any prejudice that Mr Benson and RL do suffer is a consequence of their own failure to apply in good time. Taking all of the above matters into consideration, neither Mr Benson nor RL has demonstrated that it would be appropriate for me to grant them permission to make their application out of time. I have concluded that it is not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time in this matter.”
The FTT also noted that:
“As the costs applications have not been admitted for consideration, it is not necessary for me to consider HMRC’s application that the costs applications should be struck out under Tribunal Rule 8(3)(c). However, I agree with HMRC that, if they had been admitted, there is no reasonable prospect of the costs applications brought by Mr Benson or RL succeeding.”
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/565
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.
