Key Facts
- •Nasim Hussain pleaded guilty to supplying false information on licence applications.
- •The Council revoked Farina Hussain's licence and refused FHCO Ltd's applications, deeming them unfit.
- •Farina and FHCO appealed to the FTT, which found them fit and proper.
- •The Council appealed to the UT, which partially upheld the appeal.
- •This appeal concerns the proper scope of the FTT's jurisdiction on appeal.
Legal Principles
On appeal, the FTT determines whether the Council's decision was wrong at the time it was made, not whether the applicant is currently fit and proper.
Paragraph 34 of Schedule 5 to the 2004 Housing Act
The FTT must show deference to the Council's judgment and conclusions, particularly in matters of value judgment.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47
Appeals are by way of rehearing, but this does not mean disregarding the Council's decision entirely. The FTT must consider whether the Council should have reached a different conclusion at the time of its decision.
Clark v Manchester City Council [2015] UKUT 129 (LC)
The FTT may consider matters unknown to the Council at the time of its decision, but only if relevant to whether the decision was wrong at the time it was made. Post-decision events are generally not relevant unless they shed light on the applicant's character at the time of the original decision.
This judgment
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the Council's appeal.
The UT erred in finding that the FTT could assess fitness and propriety at the time of the appeal, rather than at the time of the Council's decision. The FTT failed to show sufficient deference to the Council's decision and reasoning. The FTT improperly considered post-decision events.
The FTT and UT decisions were set aside.
The Council's decisions to revoke Farina's licence and refuse FHCO's applications were confirmed as correct. Farina failed to show the Council's decision was wrong at the time it was made.