Elizabeth Arden (UK) Ltd v The Environment Agency
[2024] UKFTT 112 (GRC)
Environment Agency v Elizabeth Arden (UK) Ltd
25 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 180 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A company didn't follow energy-saving rules, so the government fined them. A lower court cancelled the fine because of a paperwork mistake. A higher court said the lower court got the rules wrong and sent the case back to be decided again properly.
Key Facts
- •Elizabeth Arden (UK) Ltd (EAUKL) failed to comply with an Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) assessment.
- •The Environment Agency (EA) issued a penalty notice of £14,850.
- •EAUKL appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which cancelled the penalty notice due to a perceived error in service and culpability assessment.
- •EA appealed the FTT decision to the Upper Tribunal (UT).
Legal Principles
Service of notices under the ESOS Regulations is governed by Regulation 51 and, where applicable, section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014, Regulation 51; Interpretation Act 1978, section 7
Appeals to the FTT can be made on the grounds that a determination, enforcement notice, or penalty notice was based on an error of fact, wrong in law, or unreasonable.
Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014, Regulation 48(1)
FTT decisions are not binding precedent on other FTT judges.
Judge Jacobs' reasoning in this case.
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
The FTT erred in law by failing to properly consider the service requirements of Regulation 51 and the Interpretation Act 1978 when assessing the validity of the penalty notice.
The case was remitted to the FTT for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
The FTT's error of law necessitates a rehearing to properly determine whether the penalty notice was validly served and whether the penalty was correctly assessed.