G Brida v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 401 (GRC)
KM & DM v Cheshire West and Chester Council
20 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 89 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Parents appealed a decision about costs in their child's education case. The judge ruled that they'd missed the deadline to ask for costs and didn't have a good reason for being late. Their appeal was thrown out because the rules clearly state when the deadline starts.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision refusing a costs order application.
- •Costs application was made 55 days late.
- •Appellants argued the FTT's decision didn't 'finally dispose' of all issues until permission to appeal was determined.
- •FTT refused to extend time for the late application, citing the lateness and lack of good reason.
- •Appellants appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) on two grounds: misdirection of law and error in refusing to extend time.
Legal Principles
Tribunal Procedure Rules should be interpreted consistently within a single piece of legislation.
Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Johnson [2020] EWCA Civ 778
Tribunal Procedure Rules must be considered as a whole, not in isolation.
Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Johnson [2020] EWCA Civ 778
Power to make Tribunal Procedure Rules should ensure proceedings are handled quickly and efficiently.
Section 22(4)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Costs in FTT proceedings are at the Tribunal's discretion (subject to Tribunal Procedure Rules).
Section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Time limits for costs applications in FTT are governed by Rule 10(5) of the 2008 Rules.
Rule 10(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008
A decision notice under Rule 30(2) is sent upon a decision that finally disposes of all issues.
Rule 30(2) of the 2008 Rules
Application for permission to appeal to the UT is governed by Rule 46 and 47 of the 2008 rules
Rule 46 and 47 of the 2008 Rules
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT did not err in law. The time limit for the costs application started upon the sending of the decision notice on the substantive appeal, not the decision on the application for permission to appeal. The FTT’s refusal to extend time was also within its discretion and not an error of law.