Judgment summary
Najat Hamasala applied to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) for permission to appeal against a First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) decision released on 23 October 2025 (TC/2024/04190). That FTT decision had refused him permission to make late appeals against a closure notice, discovery assessments and late filing penalties (1), (2).
The FTT had previously refused permission to appeal in a decision released on 30 January 2026 (3). Mr Hamasala then applied to the Upper Tribunal, and Judge Jeanette Zaman initially refused permission on the papers. Mr Hamasala requested reconsideration at an oral hearing, held on 16 June 2026 at the Rolls Building, which he attended; HMRC did not attend (3).
Judge Zaman refused permission to appeal (4), (40).
Background
Mr Hamasala had appealed to HMRC against a closure notice and discovery assessments on 21 June 2017, with HMRC issuing its view of the matter letter on 17 August 2017 (26(1)). HMRC wrote to Mr Hamasala's accountant on 1 May 2019 refusing to accept a late appeal against penalties as too late, and stating he could ask the tribunal to review the decision, with a deadline of 31 May 2019 (26(2), 28).
Mr Hamasala appealed to the FTT against the closure notice, assessments and penalties on 2 June 2024 (26(3)). The FTT found the appeal against the closure notice and assessments was six years and nine months late, and the appeals against the penalties were more than five years late, with the earliest penalty appeal being nine years late (18(2), 36).
The FTT considered the guidance in Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) and referred to Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC) (Medpro UT) (13). The FTT concluded it would have reached the same outcome under either approach (15, 34). The FTT refused permission for the late appeals, citing the significant and serious delay (18(5)).
Core dispute
The issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether the FTT had made an error of law, material to its decision, in refusing to exercise its discretion to permit Mr Hamasala's late appeals (11).
Mr Hamasala argued that HMRC's underlying calculations were unfair, based on limited observation days at the car wash, incorrect assumptions about pricing (he said £5 to £6 per car rather than £7), staffing levels, and the assumed days and hours of operation (8(1)).
He also argued that his accountant, who had a medical condition requiring hospital treatment, had misled him that matters were in hand, that English was not his first language, that he had continued writing to HMRC after 2019 rather than appealing to the FTT, and that his household budget showed no net income available to pay creditors (8(2)-(4), 9).
Court findings
The Upper Tribunal noted that the correct legal approach to late appeals, following the Court of Appeal decision in HMRC v Medpro Healthcare Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 14 (Medpro CA), was the Martland guidance as amplified by Katib, and that the Supreme Court had refused permission to appeal in that case, making Medpro CA final (16).
On the challenge to HMRC's calculations, the Tribunal found the FTT was not obviously required to address this expressly, as it was not persuaded Mr Hamasala's case was obviously strong such that it must be expressly taken into account (23).
On reliance on the accountant, the FTT had applied the general rule in Katib that failures by an adviser are generally treated as failures by the litigant (24). The Upper Tribunal noted Mr Hamasala had become aware in 2019 that in-time appeals had not been made, and that one email had gone to an incorrect HMRC address (25).
On communications with HMRC between 2019 and 2024, the Tribunal noted the only documentary evidence produced was a November 2019 letter and June/July 2024 emails, and that this evidence had been before the FTT and taken into account (27, 29).
On financial hardship, the Tribunal noted this is a common feature raised by many taxpayers and does not necessarily outweigh other factors, and that the FTT had taken this into account (30, 31).
On the language point, the Tribunal noted Mr Hamasala represented himself at the FTT hearing, and the FTT found he was aware of HMRC's letters and of the existence of the FTT, referring to letters from August 2017 and May 2019 (32, 33).
Overall, the Upper Tribunal considered the FTT had taken account of all Mr Hamasala's arguments and that he was essentially arguing the FTT should have given more weight to certain factors, which is a matter for the FTT's evaluative judgment (37).
Outcome
The Upper Tribunal held it was not persuaded that it was arguable the FTT made an error of law in refusing permission for the late appeals (37).
Permission to appeal was refused (37, 40).
The Tribunal noted that even had permission been granted, this would not necessarily have meant Mr Hamasala would be granted permission to make the late appeals or that any late appeals would succeed, and that costs orders could apply in the Upper Tribunal unlike in the FTT proceedings (39).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the FTT erred in law in refusing permission for late appeals against a closure notice, discovery assessments and late filing penalties.
- Whether the FTT should have expressly considered Mr Hamasala's challenges to the accuracy of HMRC's underlying calculations when assessing prejudice.
- Whether reliance on an accountant, who had a medical condition, excused the delay under the general rule that adviser failures are treated as failures of the litigant.
- Whether Mr Hamasala's financial hardship and household budget outweighed the length and reasons for the delay.
- Whether English not being Mr Hamasala's first language affected his awareness of appeal deadlines and the existence of the FTT.
- Which legal approach applied to late appeal applications, given the subsequent Court of Appeal decision in Medpro CA confirming the Martland/Katib guidance.