Judgment summary
This decision concerns an application by Sanjaykumar Vadera to reinstate an appeal under Rule 8(5)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, following its automatic strike out on 13 November 2025 (paras 3, 5).
The underlying appeal concerns the Appellant's entitlement to repayment of SDLT of approximately £2.8 million arising from his acquisition of Apartment 6.03, a storage unit and a parking space at 20 Grosvenor Square, London, in December 2020 (para 4). The merits of that appeal were not before the Tribunal on this application (para 4).
The strike out followed the Appellant's failure to respond to a Tribunal direction of 4 September 2025, a reminder of 8 October 2025 and an unless order of 27 October 2025, all requiring confirmation of his intention to continue with the appeal (paras 12-17). The Appellant's original representatives, Cornerstone Tax 2020 Limited, had entered administration on 11 September 2024 (para 11).
Applying the three-stage Martland/Denton framework, the Tribunal found the breach serious and significant when viewed as a sequence of failures rather than an isolated omission (paras 79-85), found the reasons for the breach weak (paras 86-98), and concluded that, on balance, reinstatement was not justified (paras 106-116). The application was refused (para 121).
Background
On 9 December 2020, the Appellant acquired Apartment 6.03, together with Storage Unit 2 and Car Parking Space 32, at 20 Grosvenor Square, London for £29,000,000 (para 6). An SDLT return was submitted on 11 December 2020 and SDLT of £4,248,750 was paid (para 7).
On 5 January 2023, Cornerstone Tax 2020 Limited, acting for the Appellant, submitted a claim for overpayment relief seeking repayment of SDLT of £2,809,250 on the basis that the transaction was not wholly residential for SDLT purposes. HMRC rejected the claim (para 8). A notice of appeal was lodged on 21 December 2023 by Cornerstone as the Appellant's representative (para 9). The appeal was later stayed pending determination of lead appeals concerning similar issues arising from the same development (para 10).
Administrators were appointed to Cornerstone on 11 September 2024 (para 11). On 4 September 2025 the Tribunal directed the Appellant to confirm by 18 September 2025 whether he wished to continue with the appeal (para 12). No response was received, and a reminder was sent on 8 October 2025 (para 13). An unless order followed on 27 October 2025, requiring confirmation by 10 November 2025 and warning of automatic strike out for non-compliance (para 15). No response was received, and the appeal was struck out on 13 November 2025 (paras 16-17).
On 26 November 2025 the Appellant contacted the Tribunal, explained he had only recently become aware of the correspondence, confirmed he wished to continue, and applied for reinstatement (paras 18-19). HMRC opposed the application by Notice of Objection dated 22 January 2026 (para 20).
Core dispute
The issue was whether the appeal should be reinstated under Rule 8(5)(a) of the FTT Rules following its automatic strike out under Rule 8(1) for failure to comply with the unless order dated 27 October 2025 (para 5).
The Appellant argued that the breach was minor in context, given the appeal had been stayed, that the relevant correspondence never came to his attention because he was living abroad and Cornerstone had ceased functioning after entering administration, and that the merits of the underlying appeal (supported by the decision in Sehgal, concerning a similar property in the same development) and the substantial sum at stake favoured reinstatement (paras 66-72).
HMRC argued that the breaches were serious and significant when considered cumulatively, that the Appellant had failed to establish adequate arrangements to monitor a substantial live appeal after Cornerstone's administration, that reliance on advisers' failings did not excuse the Appellant's own lack of diligence, and that the merits of the substantive appeal should carry little weight on this application (paras 73-77).
Court findings
Applying the Martland/Denton three-stage test, the Tribunal found that the relevant breach was not a single isolated omission but a sequence of failures: non-response to the direction of 4 September 2025, the reminder of 8 October 2025, and the unless order of 27 October 2025 (paras 79-84). The breach was held to be serious and significant, though not at the highest end of the scale (para 85).
The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant did not deliberately ignore the correspondence and that it never came to his personal attention, but found this did not explain the absence of any effective arrangements to monitor a live appeal worth approximately £2.8 million after Cornerstone entered administration in September 2024 (paras 86-97). The reasons for the breach were held to be weak and to weigh materially against reinstatement (para 98).
In considering all the circumstances, the Tribunal weighed factors favouring reinstatement (the breach was not deliberate, the Appellant acted promptly on discovering the strike out, no hearing date was lost, and the appeal had been stayed) against the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged lack of oversight of the appeal (paras 100-110). The Tribunal accepted that Sehgal showed the appeal was not hopeless but attached only limited weight to the substantive merits, consistent with Global Torch, Martland and Chappell (paras 111-113).
The Tribunal concluded that the severe consequences of refusing reinstatement did not outweigh the seriousness of the procedural failures, the absence of a satisfactory explanation, and the need to give effect to Tribunal directions and orders (paras 114-116).
Outcome
The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's failures to comply with the direction, reminder and unless order constituted a serious and significant breach for which no satisfactory explanation had been provided regarding the absence of arrangements to monitor the appeal after Cornerstone's administration (paras 117-119).
Having considered all the circumstances and giving particular weight to the importance of compliance with Tribunal directions, the Tribunal was not persuaded that reinstatement was justified (para 120). The application for reinstatement was refused (para 121).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether an appeal automatically struck out under Rule 8(1) for breach of an unless order should be reinstated under Rule 8(5)(a) of the FTT Rules.
- Whether the breach of the unless order should be assessed in isolation or together with the antecedent failures to comply with the earlier direction and reminder.
- Whether the collapse of the Appellant's representative, Cornerstone, into administration provided an adequate explanation for the Appellant's non-compliance.
- The extent to which a litigant remains personally responsible for monitoring proceedings notwithstanding reliance on an adviser.
- The relevance of the substantial amount at stake (approximately £2.8 million) to the balancing exercise under Martland.
- The weight to be given to the merits of the underlying SDLT appeal, including reliance on the decision in Sehgal concerning a similar property in the same development, when determining a procedural reinstatement application.