Kwasi Date-Bah & Anor v Rachel Radice
[2023] UKUT 289 (LC)
Michael Osagie v Kingsley Onwuka & Anor
18 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 293 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord didn't show up to court and lost a case where he had to pay his tenants back rent. Even though the court made a mistake by not saying why it was fair to continue without him, the landlord still lost because he knew about the court date and there was strong evidence against him. The higher court said it wasn't unfair for the landlord to lose.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Osagie (appellant) failed to attend a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) hearing regarding a rent repayment order.
- •The FTT proceeded in his absence and ordered Mr. Osagie to repay £12,600 to his former tenants (respondents).
- •Mr. Osagie claimed he was unaware of the hearing, but evidence showed he received notice.
- •The FTT did not explicitly state it considered the interests of justice before proceeding without Mr. Osagie.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found a procedural irregularity but considered whether to set aside the FTT's decision.
Legal Principles
A tribunal cannot find a party guilty or liable without fair notice enabling them to appear and defend.
R v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee ex p Rossi [1956] 1 QB 682
Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 allows a tribunal to proceed in a party's absence if (a) the party was notified or reasonable steps were taken to notify them and (b) it is in the interests of justice.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, Rule 34
The FTT's overriding objective is to deal with cases fairly and justly (rule 3(1)).
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, Rule 3(1)
Section 11, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 confers a right of appeal on any point of law. A serious procedural irregularity may be an error of law, but not all errors require setting aside the decision.
Section 11, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
While the FTT failed to explicitly consider the interests of justice before proceeding in Mr. Osagie's absence (a serious procedural irregularity), the UT found no injustice resulted. Mr. Osagie had received notice of the hearing, and the evidence strongly supported the FTT's findings and the rent repayment order.