Tribunal Strikes Out Appeal in Lawn Road Cafe Ltd v The Pension Regulator Due to Failure to Meet Jurisdictional Pre-Conditions

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 58 (GRC)
Judgment on


In the case of Lawn Road Cafe Ltd v The Pension Regulator ([2024] UKFTT 58 (GRC)), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) considered an application by Lawn Road Cafe Ltd (‘the Appellant’) for an appeal against a Fixed Penalty Notice issued by The Pensions Regulator (‘the Regulator’). The key determinative issue in this proceeding was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of the Appellant’s non-compliance with the statutory pre-conditions set forth for lodging such an appeal.

Key Facts

The Appellant was seeking to appeal a Fixed Penalty Notice dated 21 August 2023. The Appellant presented what it considered mitigating circumstances and indicated that it had since become compliant with the relevant regulations. However, the Regulator moved to have the appeal struck out on the grounds that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Crucially, this was because The Pensions Regulator had not conducted a review of the penalty, a prerequisite for Tribunal consideration pursuant to s. 44 (2) of the Pensions Act 2008, as the Appellant had failed to request such a review within the prescribed time limit.

The legal principle at the heart of this case rests on the jurisdictional pre-conditions that must be met for an appeal to be heard by the Tribunal. This is encapsulated under rule 8 (2) (a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, which mandates that the Tribunal must strike out a case if it does not have jurisdiction. Furthermore, s. 44 (2) of the Pensions Act 2008 stipulates that an appeal against a financial penalty can only proceed if The Pensions Regulator has conducted a review, presupposing that a review request has been timely submitted.

The Appellant’s failure to request a review of the Penalty Notice from The Pensions Regulator within the relevant time frame meant that one of the essential pre-conditions for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was not met. The Tribunal had to determine whether or not this procedural requirement could be overlooked, but as per rule 8, there is no room for discretion in matters of jurisdiction.


Judge Alison McKenna, presiding over the matter, struck out the appeal because of the absence of jurisdiction. It was concluded that since the Regulator did not conduct a review—because the Appellant did not request one within the specified period—the Tribunal inherently lacked the authority to consider the appeal. The judgment firmly followed the rules and statutes governing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, underscoring the rigid application of jurisdictional requirements in the regulatory chamber.


The decision in Lawn Road Cafe Ltd v The Pension Regulator reiterates the importance of adhering to statutory procedures when attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of a legal tribunal. The clear message for practitioners is that failure to meet explicit procedural pre-conditions prescribed by legislation will almost certainly result in strike out applications being upheld. This case specifically highlights the Tribunal’s lack of discretion in jurisdictional matters when statutory conditions are unmet. Legal professionals should take heed of this ruling and meticulously ensure compliance with all procedural requirements when representing clients in regulatory appeals to avoid dismissal of their cases on jurisdictional grounds.

Related Summaries