Judgment summary
This is a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) on reconsideration, following an oral hearing, of an application by Michael Stefan Duma for permission to appeal against a First-tier Tribunal decision released on 26 November 2025.
The FTT had determined, at a preliminary hearing, that Mr Duma's appeal against a Notice of Requirement (NOR) for security for PAYE and NICs had not been brought in time, should not be admitted late, and that no further directions were required (paragraph 6).
The FTT refused permission to appeal on 19 February 2026, and the Upper Tribunal refused permission on the papers on 31 March 2026. Following a request for an oral hearing, that hearing took place remotely on 20 July 2026, attended by both parties (paragraphs 2 to 3).
At the oral hearing, counsel for the Applicant confirmed the grounds previously argued in writing were no longer pursued, and instead advanced four new grounds set out in a skeleton argument filed shortly before the hearing (paragraphs 7 to 10). The Upper Tribunal refused permission on all four grounds and concluded that no arguable error of law had been identified (paragraph 32).
Background
HMRC issued Notices of Requirement (NORs) to IntechVentures Limited and to Mr Duma personally, requiring security for PAYE and National Insurance Contributions. Both parties appealed to the FTT against the notices (paragraph 5).
Intech was subsequently wound up and did not participate in the FTT hearing. The FTT held a preliminary hearing to determine three issues: whether the appeal was brought in time, whether it should be admitted late if not, and what directions should follow (paragraph 5).
The FTT found that Mr Duma's appeal had not been brought in time, declined to admit it late, and held that no further directions were needed (paragraph 6). The FTT refused permission to appeal on 19 February 2026, and the Upper Tribunal refused permission on the papers on 31 March 2026 (paragraph 2).
Core dispute
The dispute concerned whether the FTT had made an arguable error of law in its preliminary decision. At the oral renewal hearing, the Applicant's counsel confirmed that earlier grounds were no longer pursued and instead advanced four new grounds (paragraphs 7 to 10):
Ground 1: that the FTT hearing was procedurally unfair, given an alleged 'inequality of arms', the remote format, lack of clarity about cross-examination and the right to give evidence, and lack of information about Legal Aid.
Ground 2: that the FTT erred in accepting the HMRC officer's certificate of service relating to the NOR received by Mr Duma.
Ground 3: that the FTT erred by failing to distinguish between the NOR received by the Company and the NOR received by Mr Duma.
Ground 4: that the FTT erred in not finding the NOR void because it included past debts.
Court findings
On Ground 1, the Upper Tribunal found that several specific complaints were not made out: the criminal charge related to non-payment of the NOR and not the preliminary hearing; Legal Aid was not available given the nature of the issues (citing Hackett v HMRC [2020] UKUT 212); HMRC's counsel confirmed he had not cross-examined Mr Duma; and a remote hearing format does not of itself found procedural unfairness (paragraph 14). The Tribunal noted that the parties had agreed the 'turn up and talk' format for the hearing, and applying the overall fairness test from Hima v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 680, concluded it was not arguable with a realistic prospect of success that the hearing was procedurally unfair (paragraphs 15 to 21).
On Ground 2, the Tribunal considered the assertion that the officer's evidence was inconsistent with evidence given in another case, Duma v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 262, and found the point unarguable after careful consideration (paragraph 23).
On Ground 3, the Tribunal found the assertion that the FTT had misdirected itself as to the existence of only one NOR to be entirely without merit, since the Decision read as a whole showed the FTT was aware there were two NORs (paragraphs 25 to 26).
On Ground 4, the Tribunal found that this was a new point not raised before the FTT and not put to the FTT when applying for permission, and that permission should not be granted on it, as this would be procedurally unfair (paragraphs 28 to 30).
Outcome
Following reconsideration after the oral hearing, the Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal on all grounds, concluding that the Applicant had not identified any arguable error of law in the FTT's Decision (paragraph 32).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the FTT hearing was procedurally unfair due to an alleged inequality of arms, remote format, and lack of clarity about cross-examination, evidence, and Legal Aid
- Whether the FTT erred in accepting the HMRC officer's certificate of service relating to the NOR received by Mr Duma
- Whether the FTT erred by failing to distinguish between the NOR received by the Company and the NOR received by Mr Duma
- Whether the FTT erred in not finding the NOR void for including past debts, and whether this was a new point not raised before the FTT