Orange Fisher Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 96 (GRC)
Farrington Care Homes Limited v The Environment Agency
12 December 2023
[2023] UKFTT 1081 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A care home appealed a fine, but it was too late. The court said they should have filed their appeal on time, even though their agent may have made a mistake. The appeal was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Farrington Care Homes Limited appealed a £18,900 civil penalty notice from the Environment Agency (EA), issued under the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) Regulations 2014.
- •The appeal was filed three months late.
- •The grounds of appeal were: erroneous penalty, unreasonable penalty, and an alleged promise by the EA to withdraw the penalty.
- •The EA denied making such a promise.
- •The appellant relied on representations from its agent, who failed to provide a witness statement due to illness.
- •The appeal was heard on the papers.
Legal Principles
Time limits for appeals should be adhered to, ensuring orderly proceedings and finality in litigation.
Data Select Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 187 (TCC); Leeds City Council v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0350 (TCC); BPP University College of Professional Studies v HMRC [2014] UKUT 496 (TCC)
When considering an extension of time, the tribunal should consider: (1) the purpose of the time limit; (2) the length of the delay; (3) the explanation for the delay; (4) the consequences of an extension; and (5) the consequences of refusal.
Data Select Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 187 (TCC) (paragraph 34)
The Tribunal has discretion to extend time limits under rule 5(3)(a) of the Tribunal’s Rules.
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Appeals under regulation 48 of the ESOS Regulations can be made on grounds of error of fact, being wrong in law, or unreasonableness.
Regulation 48 of the ESOS Regulations 2014
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The appeal was significantly out of time, and the explanation for the delay (reliance on the agent's representations) was deemed insufficient. The appellant's failure to directly address the prescribed grounds of appeal and attempt to litigate an issue outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction further contributed to the dismissal.
The request for an extension of time was refused.
The three-month delay was significant, the explanation for the delay was weak, and proceeding with the appeal would cause further delay and expense.