Top-Notch Accountants Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Under the statutory tribunal appeal scheme, an FTT’s refusal of permission may be renewed once to the Upper Tribunal. After the Upper Tribunal determines that application, the FTT has no jurisdiction to reopen review of the same decision; its review power under Rule 41 is conditional on an error of law. A tribunal must give adequate reasons, but there is no general duty to set out every statutory provision. Read as a whole, reasons may sufficiently explain that appeal rights have been exhausted. Proceedings brought without jurisdiction must be struck out after the party has had an opportunity to make representations. Proceedings with no reasonable prospect of success may also be struck out after that opportunity.

Top-Notch Accountants Limited applied for permission to appeal a First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) decision dated 17 July 2025. That decision refused a late application concerning an earlier decision on a Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme payment for an employee, Top-Notch Accountants Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00473. The FTT considered that appeal rights had been exhausted after it and the Upper Tribunal had refused permission to appeal the 2023 decision.

The Applicant relied on a later appeal concerning payments under a second CJRS scheme, which had been allowed after HMRC chose not to defend it. The FTT refused permission to appeal the 2025 decision on 26 November 2025. The Upper Tribunal first refused the renewed application on the papers, then heard the Applicant’s request for reconsideration. The central issues were whether the FTT had jurisdiction to review the earlier decision, whether its reasons were legally adequate, and whether the later appeal affected that jurisdiction.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. An appeal from the FTT lies only on a point of law under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Permission requires a realistic prospect of success or, exceptionally, another good reason. In this Chamber, the grounds must disclose an arguable error of law material to the outcome or another compelling reason. The Applicant had shown neither.

2. The statutory scheme allows an application for permission to appeal to the FTT and, if refused, a single renewal to the Upper Tribunal. Sections 11(1), 11(3) and 11(4), given procedural effect by Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 and Rule 21 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, provide no route back to the FTT after the Upper Tribunal has determined the application. The FTT was therefore entitled to find that it had no jurisdiction to review the same decision once the earlier permission applications had been determined.

3. Under Rule 41 of the FTT Rules, review is available only pursuant to Rule 40(1) and where the FTT is satisfied that the decision contained an error of law. Both the FTT and Upper Tribunal had previously found no error of law in the 2023 decision. The Applicant’s later arguments about that decision did not restore review jurisdiction.

4. A tribunal’s duty is to give adequate reasons, not an exhaustive account of the statutory framework. There is no general requirement to set out the relevant statutory provisions. Read fairly and as a whole, the 2025 decision identified the jurisdictional issue, explained that the permission process had been exhausted, and made clear why the matter could not proceed.

5. Rule 8(2) of the FTT Rules requires proceedings to be struck out for lack of jurisdiction after the party has had an opportunity to make representations. Rule 8(3)(c) permits strike-out where there is no reasonable prospect of success, also after that opportunity. The Applicant had been invited to make representations, so the FTT was entitled to strike out on both grounds.

6. The later appeal concerning a second CJRS scheme did not affect whether the FTT had jurisdiction to review the 2023 decision. HMRC’s choice not to defend that later appeal meant its outcome did not judicially determine the merits of the earlier decision or revive exhausted appeal rights. The Applicant’s focus on alleged errors in the 2023 decision did not establish an arguable error in the 2025 decision.

• Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): On 8 June 2026, following an oral hearing to reconsider its refusal on the papers, refused permission to appeal the FTT’s 2025 decision.
• Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): In 2023, refused permission to appeal the 2023 FTT decision, first on the papers and again after an oral hearing on 17 October 2023.
• First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber): Refused permission to appeal the 2025 decision on 26 November 2025. Its decision of 17 July 2025 had refused late permission to appeal the 2023 decision and struck out the notice of appeal.
• First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber): Refused permission to appeal its 2023 decision on 12 July 2023. The decision was Top-Notch Accountants Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00473.