Key Facts
- •LW's claim was struck out by the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) for non-compliance with an order to file an attendance form.
- •LW did not receive the order striking out the claim until April 19th, after the initial deadline of February 21st.
- •LW applied for reinstatement on April 19th, which the FtT deemed out of time.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether the FtT correctly applied rule 8(7) of the FtT Rules regarding the 28-day time limit for reinstatement.
Legal Principles
Rule 8 of the First-tier Tribunal (HESC Chamber) Rules governs the automatic striking out of proceedings for non-compliance with directions and the subsequent application for reinstatement.
First-tier Tribunal (HESC Chamber) Rules, Rule 8
The 28-day time limit for reinstatement applications under Rule 8(7) begins when the Tribunal sends notification of the striking out.
First-tier Tribunal (HESC Chamber) Rules, Rule 8(7)
The overriding objective of the Tribunal Rules is to deal with cases fairly and justly, considering proportionality, avoiding unnecessary formality, ensuring full participation, using expertise effectively, and avoiding delay.
First-tier Tribunal Rules, Rule 2
In considering reinstatement, factors include the reason for failure, undue delay, and prejudice to the other party.
Gaydamak v UBS Bahamas Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 1097 and Grimshaw v Dunbar [1953] 1 QB 408
The Tribunal should consider the broad justice of the case when deciding on reinstatement.
Synergy Child Services Ltd v Ofste d [2009] UKUT 125 (AAC)
Section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allows the Upper Tribunal to set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal made in error of law and remake the decision.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by calculating the 28-day time limit for reinstatement from the date of the order to file the attendance form (February 14th), rather than the date of notification of the striking out (April 19th).
The First-tier Tribunal's decision was set aside.
The decision was made in error of law.
The application for reinstatement was deemed to be in time.
The 28-day period for applying for reinstatement began on April 19th, when LW received notification of the striking out, not February 14th.
The case was referred back to the First-tier Tribunal to consider the merits of the reinstatement application.
The Upper Tribunal considered that the FtT was better placed to determine the merits of the reinstatement application than the UT.