2240500622
The conduct of litigation in courts in England and Wales is guided by an overriding objective which underpins the entire Civil Procedure Rules framework and the Criminal Procedure Rules. The primary purpose of the overriding objective is to ensure that cases are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost.
While this Tribunal is not bound by either sets of the Rules, there is absolutely no justification as to why parties and the Tribunal should not conduct proceedings in line with the overriding objective.
When a Notice of Appeal is served by the Tribunal on the enforcing authority, the Authority must respond with the service of an evidence pack which will normally include its submissions against points raised in the representations and the Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal in this case prevents the Authority from doing anything but to respond to the representations. When the Appellant serves a more substantive case, the Authority will have to re-visit its case in case a further response is required.
In this and some other cases, the situation is made worse by a party making a point which was never raised at the representations stage or in the Notgice of Appeal. The authority is obliged not just to re-visit its case, but to address the new (often lengthy) arguments, and often at short notice.
In some cases, one can understand readily an Appellant making further submissions after the Authority has served its evidence pack. This does not arise in this case. Apart from the copy of the PCN, the original of which was with the Appellant, the evidence pack had nothing to do with Mr Morgan’s argument. Nothing prevented him from setting out his case fairly and squarely when he prepared the Notice of Appeal.
This delay on the service of the Appellant’s case obliges the respondent authority to prepare their case twice. The informal approach in this Tribunal is not carte blanche for Appellants and their representatives to cause unnecessary work to the Authority in direct contradiction to the overriding objective. I dare say that if an authority having served its evidence pack, then chose to make further and lengthy submissions without any justification, there would be an uproar and a clamour for the appeal to be allowed for this reason alone. Appellant do not have a special privilege to behave differently. Adjudicators will bear in mind their power to award costs if a party ‘s conduct in making or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable, irrespective of the outcome of an appeal.
[/i]
Mr.Chan indulging in a severe knuckle-rapping?
What becomes of standard advice to those registering an appeal to put
I rely on my earlier representations and full submission to followlet alone the current even terser comment?
re:
Glasgow City Council v Upper Tribunal for Scotland [2025] CSIH 2XA38/24As I see it, the Court of Seesion was keen to stress the particularity of the case before it:
59] The court would emphasise that its decision is based on the particular facts of the
present case in which Mr Hamilton accepted that he received the PCN and where it is clear
that he challenged it timeously. Much seems to have turned on the fact that although the notice was sent by ordinary post rather than the law's requirement of some traceable delivery, the original appellant was not disadvantaged by use of the ordinary post. One is left with impression that had he been disadvantaged the Court may have found differently.
