(1) Once the public law issues in a judicial review claim have been resolved, section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allows the Upper Tribunal to transfer an action for damages to a county court. Judges: The Hon Mr Justice Lane, President Upper Tribunal Judge O’Callaghan Citations: [2021] UKUT 320 (IAC) Links: … Continue reading T, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Judicial Review: Damages Claims): UTIAC 30 Nov 2021
1. Where s.104(4A) applies to an appeal, neither the First-tier Tribunal nor the Upper Tribunal has any jurisdiction unless and until a notice is given in accordance with s.104(4B). 2. If such a notice is given, it has the effect of retrospectively causing the appeal to have been pending throughout, and validating any act by … Continue reading MSU (S104(4B) Notices) Bangladesh: UTIAC 20 Dec 2019
Appeals Under Section 13 of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 By Judges: Lord Doherty Citations: [2020] ScotCS CSIH – 60, [2020] CSIH 60, [2020] STC 2125, 2020 GWD 30-394, 2021 SC 123, [2020] BVC 19, 2020 SLT 1131 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: Scotland Cited by: Appeal from – DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v Revenue … Continue reading DCM (Holdings) Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: SCS 8 Sep 2020
(1) In determining whether, in the case of a person removed from the United Kingdom pursuant to a certificate under section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, there has been a breach of Article 8 ECHR in its procedural or substantive form, the actions of the Secretary of State do not necessarily … Continue reading Watson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (S 94B Process, S 25 Powers): UTIAC 5 May 2022
Unison brought two challenges to rules brought in to impose fees for the bringing of cases in the Employment Tribunal. Held: The appeals were dismissed. The imposition of a fee would not constitute an interference with the right of effective access to a tribunal under EU law unless it made it impossible in practice to … Continue reading Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor: CA 26 Aug 2015
The claimant had sought and been refused judicial review of a decision of the SIAC Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunals were designated as courts of superior record, and the court at first instance had said that SIACs specialist procedures and jurisdiction meant that it was amenable to judicial review, but only on grounds of excess … Continue reading Cart, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others: CA 23 Jul 2010
The statutory mechanism for commercial rent arrears recovery was not the equivalent of the old common law right to distrain for arrears of rent. Levying distress under the old common law right was an unequivocal recognition that the lease was continuing on the day of distress itself. Whether the exercise of the new statutory mechanism … Continue reading Thirunavukkrasu v Brar and Another: ChD 24 Sep 2018
UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER – enforcement of FTT’s order requiring provision of documents and computer records – whether order complied with – whether order should be set aside – jurisdiction of Upper Tribunal in relation to enforcement of final orders of FTT – s.24(4), Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – s.25, … Continue reading Coates v Marathon Estates Ltd: UTLC 1 Feb 2018
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception to state immunity. Held: The Kingdom’s appeal succeeded. The protection of state immunity was essentially a … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others: HL 14 Jun 2006
WASTED COSTS – section 29(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Citations: [2014] UKUT 99 (TCC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Costs Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.525874
(i) The power conferred on the Upper Tribunal, exercisable upon remittal to the First-tier Tribunal, by section 12(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to give directions is distinct from the power conferred by section 12(3)(b) to give procedural directions. (ii) Directions under section 12(b)(i) encompass matters such as guidance on the law … Continue reading ONM (Remittal To UKFTT With Directions): UTIAC 17 Aug 2015
The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal. Held: With one exception, under rule 10(1), the FTT can only make two types of costs order. The … Continue reading Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 May 2016
PROCEDURE – application for permission to appeal – decisions of first-tier tribunal in rent cases – appeal on point of law only – criteria to be applied – s. 11, Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – permission granted [2014] UKUT RAP-19-2013 (LC) Bailii England and Wales Housing Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525945
FTTTx Costs – litigant in person – reasonable excuse case – whether Respondents acted unreasonably – yes – costs awarded [2014] UKFTT 201 (TC) Bailii The Litigants In Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Taxes Management Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525201
UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – estate charges – estate management scheme – section 159, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – whether jurisdiction to vary a variable estate charge – unopposed appeal – observations on power of review under section 9, Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – appeal allowed Martin Rodger QC, DP [2013] UKUT … Continue reading Scriven and Others v Calthorpe Estates and Others: UTLC 25 Sep 2013
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper scope of judicial review was limited or excluded. … Continue reading Cart v The Upper Tribunal: SC 21 Jun 2011
The respondent had had prepared a report as to the balance of its reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Earlier proceedings had established that the purposes of the holding of the reporting included jurnalism. The claimant now appealed against an order by the Information Tribunal saying that if the purposes included journalism, then other purposes for … Continue reading Sugar v The British Broadcasting Commission and Another (No 2): CA 23 Jun 2010
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets in the UK. They argued that the terms of issue waived state immunity. Held: The … Continue reading NML Capital Ltd v Argentina: SC 6 Jul 2011
LRA Costs : Parties Without Representation – Litigants in person – entitlement to costs and expenses; Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975, s 1(1), (2); Civil Procedure Rules: CPR 2.3(3), 48.6(1) – . .
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
tribunal appointed manager discharged – manager’s duty to account for funds received – consequences of manager’s failure to account – s.24, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – s.25, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – rule 8(5), Tribunal . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
