Fah Hor Chong v Eleonora Severgnini & Ors
[2024] UKUT 348 (LC)
Siraj Deane v London Borough of Newham
25 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 300 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A man was fined for a housing violation he denied. The first court threw out his appeal because he missed a deadline. A higher court ruled the first court made mistakes in following the rules, and gave the man another chance to fight the fine.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Deane appealed against a £7,500 financial penalty imposed by the London Borough of Newham for allegedly managing an unlicensed HMO.
- •The FTT struck out Mr. Deane's appeal for failing to file a bundle of documents.
- •Mr. Deane claimed he had no connection with the property.
- •The FTT applied CPR 9.3 and disregarded the merits of the appeal when deciding not to reinstate it.
- •Mr. Deane appealed the FTT's refusal to reinstate his appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Legal Principles
Overriding objective of the FTT Rules is to deal with cases fairly and justly.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, rule 3
FTT may take action it considers just for non-compliance with rules or directions (including striking out a case or reinstating it).
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, rule 8(2), rule 9
Approach to procedural non-compliance in tribunals is more aligned with civil courts (BPP Holdings). However, Tribunal rules are not identical to CPR and have different emphases.
BPP Holdings v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKSC 55
Denton three-stage test for relief from sanctions: (1) seriousness of failure; (2) reason for default; (3) all circumstances, including efficient litigation and enforcing compliance (CPR 3.9).
Denton v T H White Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Merits of a case are generally irrelevant to case management decisions (Global Torch), except where summary judgment is warranted.
Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd (No 2) [2014] UKSC 64
Appellate courts should be restrained in interfering with case management decisions unless plainly wrong (BPP Holdings, Walbrook Trustee).
BPP Holdings v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 121; Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd v Fattal [2008] EWCA Civ 427
Housing Act 2004, sections 72(1), 249A, 262(7), 263(1), 263(3) define relevant offences and related terms (e.g., 'person having control', 'person managing', 'owner').
Housing Act 2004
Outcomes
Appeal allowed. FTT's decision refusing to reinstate Mr. Deane's appeal is set aside.
The FTT misdirected itself by relying on the wrong procedural rules (CPR instead of FTT Rules), misapplied the Haziri precedent by not considering the exception for cases with clear outcomes, and failed to adequately consider the weakness of the Council's case and the potential for lesser sanctions.
Mr. Deane's appeal against the financial penalty is reinstated, but limited to the documents and explanation in his original notice of appeal.
This is deemed the fairest outcome given the circumstances, balancing justice with procedural compliance.
The Council has 21 days to decide whether to proceed with a further hearing before the FTT or allow the Upper Tribunal to decide the appeal based on the existing (weak) evidence.
Allows the Council to determine the most efficient course of action given the identified weaknesses in their case.