Judgment summary
This is a reconsideration, at an oral hearing, of an application by Complete Electrical Services (NW) Limited ("CESL") for permission to appeal against a First-tier Tribunal ("FTT") decision released on 16 January 2026 (TC/2022/14173). The FTT had dismissed CESL's appeal against a VAT assessment for the periods 10/15 to 01/19 totalling £46,791 (as amended), finding that the assessment was made to HMRC's best judgment and that CESL had not discharged its burden of proving the assessment incorrect [5]-[6].
The FTT refused permission to appeal on all grounds on 21 April 2026. CESL then applied to the Upper Tribunal on 21 May 2026. Judge Jeanette Zaman refused that application on the papers on 25 August 2026 (the "UT Papers Decision") [1]. CESL applied for that decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing, which took place on 21 October 2026 [2].
At the renewal hearing, Judge Zaman again refused permission to appeal on all three grounds relied upon by CESL [37].
Background
The FTT hearing was conducted remotely by video on 4 August 2025, attended by Yusuf Mohammed for CESL and Ope Abolude for HMRC, with Officer Winnet Chamapiwa attending as a witness for HMRC [11].
Technical difficulties arose during Ms Abolude's submissions from around 11.25am, causing Mr Mohammed to be disconnected from the hearing. Attempts to enable him to rejoin were unsuccessful. The hearing platform remained operational for the FTT and Ms Abolude, who confirmed she had no further submissions beyond HMRC's statement of case. The oral hearing was then ended, and the FTT issued directions allowing CESL to provide final written submissions within 14 days, by 18 August 2025 [11].
On 18 August 2025, Mr Fielding of JML provided correspondence attaching further documentation (the "additional documentation"), including Excel spreadsheets of CESL's bank account control transactions and VAT transactions for the period 1 February 2016 to 31 October 2018 [11], [21]. The FTT declined to admit this material, treating it as new evidence not provided to HMRC for review before the hearing, which had already been postponed many times (FTT[10]-[12]).
Core dispute
CESL advanced three grounds of appeal. Ground 1 asserted procedural unfairness arising from the technical difficulties during the remote hearing, arguing that the FTT erred in law by proceeding without ensuring effective participation or considering an adjournment, and that the direction for written submissions did not cure the prejudice, particularly as the FTT then refused to admit the additional documentation provided on 18 August 2025 [7(1)].
Ground 2 argued that the FTT's exclusion of the additional documentation, comprising contemporaneous accounting records and VAT schedules capable of addressing the assumptions underlying the VAT assessment, was unfair [7(2)].
Ground 3 argued that the exclusion of this evidence was potentially material to the outcome, given the FTT's conclusion that CESL had failed to show the VAT assessment was incorrect [7(3)].
Court findings
The Upper Tribunal noted that, under s11(1) Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, an appeal lies only on a point of law, and permission requires an arguable error of law material to the decision, meaning an argument with a realistic rather than fanciful prospect of success [4].
On Ground 1, the Tribunal found that Mr Mohammed had already presented CESL's oral case, heard HMRC's submissions and cross-examined the HMRC witness before the disconnection, and that HMRC made no further oral submissions after the technical difficulties arose. The FTT's decision to end the hearing and permit written submissions within 14 days was pragmatic and in accordance with the overriding objective in the FTT Rules, giving Mr Mohammed an opportunity to respond with more time to prepare. Citing Hima v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 680 at [53] on assessing overall fairness, the Tribunal was not persuaded it was arguable that there was procedural unfairness or an error of law [14]-[17].
On Ground 2, applying the criteria in Ladd v Marshall and the approach in Bramley Ferry Supplies v HMRC [2017] UKUT 214 (TCC) at [23], the Tribunal found that the additional documentation could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the hearing. Mr Fielding's explanation, that non-provision resulted from ill-health, family concerns and workload pressures, did not justify shifting the consequences of CESL's oversight onto HMRC. The Tribunal also considered that the schedules' reliability was questionable without the underlying documentation, and that admitting the evidence at that late stage would prejudice HMRC and was inconsistent with the overriding objective, the hearing not being "a dress rehearsal" [23]-[31].
On Ground 3, the Tribunal found this was not a free-standing ground and failed given the conclusions on Grounds 1 and 2 [34]-[35].
Outcome
Permission to appeal was refused on all three grounds [18], [33], [36]. The overall decision was that permission to appeal is REFUSED [37].
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether an appeal to the Upper Tribunal lies only on a point of law under s11(1) Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and whether the proposed grounds disclosed an arguable error of law.
- Whether the FTT acted unfairly by ending a remote hearing after CESL's representative was disconnected due to technical difficulties, instead of ensuring his rejoining or adjourning.
- Whether directing written submissions within 14 days cured any prejudice caused by the representative's inability to make oral closing submissions.
- Whether the FTT erred in refusing to admit additional documentation (accounting records and VAT schedules) submitted by CESL on 18 August 2025 after the hearing had concluded.
- Whether the Ladd v Marshall criteria, as applied persuasively per Bramley Ferry Supplies v HMRC, were satisfied in relation to the additional documentation.
- Whether the exclusion of the additional documentation was material to the FTT's conclusion that CESL had not shown the VAT assessment to be incorrect.