Judgment summary
This is a procedural decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), decided on the papers by Tribunal Judge Blackwell. It concerns a series of applications made by the Appellant, Future Fuels No.1, without first consulting the Respondents, HMRC, as required by the Tribunal's practice statement and subsequent directions.
The Tribunal had earlier refused an application of 22 July 2026 to admit further expert evidence because it did not conform to the Applications for Extension of Time: Practice Statement for First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (as updated in January 2026), which requires consultation with the other side before an application is made [3]-[4]. Following that refusal, the Tribunal issued directions on 24 August 2026 setting out specific requirements for any future applications [8].
Despite those directions, the Appellant made two further applications, on 26 August 2026 and 7 September 2026, again without consulting HMRC [10]-[11]. The Tribunal refused both applications without considering their substantive merits, on the basis that they failed to comply with the directions of 24 August 2026 [15]-[16].
Background
On 22 July 2026 Future Fuels made an application ("the Application") to admit further expert evidence, purportedly under r.5(3)(a), 5(3)(d) and 15(1)(c) [1]-[2]. As an application for an extension of time, it was required to conform with the Applications for Extension of Time: Practice Statement for First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (as updated in January 2026), which requires consultation with the other side before an application is made, referencing paragraphs [8], [10](2), [13](3)-(4) of that practice statement [3].
The Application was sent to HMRC at 12:02 on 22 July 2026, notifying HMRC that it was to be filed later that day and seeking HMRC's consent. In the absence of any response, it was sent to the Tribunal at 15:40 that afternoon, giving HMRC only 3 hours and 38 minutes to comment, which the Tribunal found insufficient time for HMRC to properly consider and respond to an application of this nature and complexity [4].
The Tribunal refused the Application on 14 August 2026. The Appellant then sought permission to appeal that refusal. In connection with the permission application, the Tribunal on 24 August 2026 issued directions, including paragraphs [65] and [66], requiring any future applications for extensions of time to comply with the practice statement, and requiring future applications to amend, suspend or set aside directions, or for further directions, to be either agreed with HMRC or accompanied by evidence of a genuine attempt to agree the application, HMRC's reasoned objections, any response to those objections, and an indication as to whether the application can be determined on the papers [8].
Core dispute
Following the 24 August 2026 directions, the Appellant filed a further application on 26 August 2026 ("the 26 August Application") and another on 7 September 2026 ("the 7 September Application"), both again without consulting HMRC [10]-[11]. The issue before the Tribunal was whether these two applications, made in apparent breach of the Tribunal's recent and specific directions requiring consultation with HMRC, should be entertained or determined on their substantive merits.
Court findings
The Tribunal found that both the 26 August Application and the 7 September Application failed to comply with the directions of 24 August 2026, which were "recent, specific and unambiguous", the 26 August Application having been made only two days after those directions [12].
The Tribunal held that in failing to comply with the directions, the Appellant had breached r.2(4), which requires parties to help the Tribunal further the overriding objective and to co-operate with the Tribunal generally [13]. The Tribunal reiterated that failure to consult HMRC delays the consideration of applications and unnecessarily diverts the Tribunal's administrative and judicial resources [14].
Taking into account all the circumstances, including the express directions of 24 August 2026, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to determine the substantive merits of either application [15].
Outcome
Both the 26 August Application and the 7 September Application were refused [16]. The Appellant remains at liberty to reapply, but any renewed application must comply with the Tribunal's directions of 24 August 2026 [17]. The decision notes the parties' right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, within 56 days of the decision being sent [18].
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Appellant's 22 July 2026 application to admit further expert evidence complied with the practice statement requiring prior consultation with HMRC
- Whether HMRC had been given sufficient time (3 hours and 38 minutes) to comment on that application
- Whether the Tribunal's directions of 24 August 2026 requiring consultation with HMRC on future applications were clear and had been breached
- Whether the 26 August 2026 and 7 September 2026 applications, made without consulting HMRC, complied with those directions
- Whether failure to consult HMRC breached the Appellant's duty under r.2(4) to help the Tribunal further the overriding objective and co-operate generally
- Whether the substantive merits of the 26 August and 7 September applications should be considered despite the procedural non-compliance