Tribunal Rules Lack of Jurisdiction in A1 Collision Ltd v The Pension Regulator Due to Procedural Non-Compliance

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 60 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of A1 Collision Ltd v The Pension Regulator [2024] UKFTT 60 (GRC), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) was tasked with assessing the jurisdictional capacity to hear an appeal following an escalating penalty notice issued by The Pensions Regulator. The deliberation hinged on procedural compliance with statutory time limits and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in such matters. This article dissects the tribunal’s decision, highlighting the pertinent legal principles and their application to this case.

Key Facts

A1 Collision Ltd (the appellant) received a fixed penalty notice on 8 September 2023 for non-compliance under the Pensions Act 2008. A review request was made by the appellant but was submitted out of time, leading to the regulator deciding not to carry out a review. Consequently, The Pensions Regulator sought to have the appeal struck out on jurisdictional grounds, invoking the provision that no review had been conducted as required by section 44(2) of the Pensions Act 2008.

The case law pivots on the understanding of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, particularly rule 8(2)(a), which allows the Tribunal to strike out a case if there is lack of jurisdiction to hear the proceedings. The procedure under regulation 15(1) of the Employer’s Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 was central to the judgement, which mandates that the period within which an application for a review of a notice may be made is 28 days from the date of issuance.

The application of these regulations is evident in paragraph 6, where the Tribunal acknowledged that the employer’s application for a review was out of time. The appellant’s failure to meet the regulatory time frame removed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the necessary conditions outlined in section 44(2) of the Pensions Act 2008 were not met.

Another pivotal legal principle was that established in Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2022] UKUT 62 (AAC), which dealt with the commencement of time limits for applying for a review when the receipt of notice is disputed. However, this principle was distinguished in paragraph 7, as the employer in the present case did not dispute receipt of the notice.

Outcomes

Based on the above principles, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the appellant’s failure to adhere to the regulatory time limits for requesting a review. Additionally, the Tribunal stated it had no power to bypass the review requirement in the interests of justice or to consider an appeal against the Regulator’s decision not to conduct a review.

Judge Buckley, therefore, struck out the appeal under rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. The Tribunal’s decision also excluded the possibility of transferring the proceedings to another court or tribunal under rule 5(3)(k)(i).

Conclusion

In summary, this case underscores the imperativeness of adherence to procedural requirements within statutory time frames for upholding the right of appeal. The Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction was, in this instance, a direct consequence of procedural non-compliance by the appellant. Legal professionals must recognize the significance of such time-bound procedural guidelines, which serve as gatekeepers in contentious regulatory matters, ensuring that cases advance within the framework of the legal system.