Author: LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers

Missing your HMRC tax tribunal appeal deadline doesn't mean your case is over. The Upper Tribunal's landmark decision in Medpro v HMRC fundamentally changed how tribunals approach late appeals, moving away from the strict Martland framework that previously barred most out-of-time applications. Today, tribunals weigh all circumstances equally—delay length, reasons for lateness, and your case's strength—rather than treating deadlines as near-absolute barriers. This shift opens new pathways for taxpayers with meritorious claims, but success depends on understanding the evolving rules and acting strategically. This guide explains the current tribunal landscape and your practical options.

Late HMRC Tax Tribunal Appeals: Medpro, Martland & Your Options

Under the old Martland rules missing a tax tribunal appeal deadline meant case closure as time limits were treated as virtually absolute. The Upper Tribunal’s 2025 decision in Medpro v HMRC restores judicial discretion and elevates case merits. Taxpayers with credible explanations now have a realistic path to rescuing late appeals. Understanding the shift and presenting your circumstances effectively to a tribunal, could mean the difference between recovering a valid claim and losing it permanently.

Only with court permission under CPR 36.10. You must prove a "change of circumstances" (e.g., new evidence), not just a change of mind. See our litigation guide.

Chinda v Cardiff: Rules on Withdrawing Accepted Part 36 Offers

Master Cook’s ruling in Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board EWHC 2696 (KB) refuses permission to withdraw an accepted Part 36 offer, stressing that a mere change of mind fails CPR 36.10’s “change of circumstances” test – even for vulnerable claimants. The court prioritised CPR Part 36 certainty.

Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth

Success: Defence of Manolete Director Repayment Claim

In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.

Can I Claim for Damages for Libel Published on the Internet

Can You Claim Damages for Internet Libel in the UK?

When false statements are published online that damage your reputation, swift legal action can help you secure compensation and restore your good name. This guide explains how internet libel claims work under UK law, the legal tests involved, and the types of remedies available, including commonly overlooked scenarios.

High Court ruling confirms HNW Lending Limited's right to enforce £1.52m bridging loan despite third-party rights challenge. Analysis of lender enforcement under Contracts Act 1999 & implications for structured finance agreements. Expert commentary from LexLaw's property litigation team.

Case Study: Bridging Lender Enforces £1.5m Bridging Loan Despite 3rd Party Challenge

The High Court, presided over by Andrew Lenon KC, upheld HNW Lending Limited’s enforcement of a £1.52 million bridging loan against property developer Nicole Lawrence, dismissing her claims of duress and unauthorised agreement amendments.

"High Court mandates £0.92m repayment by director for breaching insolvency duties, clarifying creditor priority and litigation funders' rights in director misconduct cases."

Manolete Case Study: Court orders Director to Repay £0.92m (Director’s Insolvency Duty Breach)

Manolete pusured a Direcors Claim against Director Norman Freed. The High Court ordered the director to repay £918,590 for funnelling monies to linked firms pre-insolvency, breaching duties under the Companies Act 2006 and Insolvency Act 1986.

WhatsApp digital messages can form legally binding contracts in English law.

Are WhatsApp Agreements Valid Contracts? High Court Rules in Jaevee Homes Limited v Fincham

Legally binding contracts in UK contract law can be made via WhatsApp, email, & text messages. The Jaevee Homes v Fincham High Court ruling confirms digital agreements require offer, acceptance, consideration, & intention (based on an objective test). Understand contract formation via electronic communication & risks of informal digital contracts in English law.