[2024] UKUT 00300 (LC)

For these reasons the appeal is allowed and the FTT’s decision of 18 December 2023 refusing to reinstate Mr Deane’s appeal against the financial penalty is set aside. In my judgment the only order which could fairly and justly have been made on that application was an order reinstating the appeal.

Two questions remain to be considered. The first is whether the order for reinstatement of the appeal should be subject to any qualification concerning Mr Deane’s participation. The FTT was unimpressed by the explanation he offered for his failure to communicate with it or to file additional documents, but the documents he did file on 15 December 2023 (which I have not been shown) are not necessary to explain his case. In my judgment the appropriate order is one confining Mr Deane to the documents and explanation he supplied with his original notice of appeal. Subject to that limitation, I would not impose any further restriction on his right to make submissions if the appeal comes to a hearing; it is not necessary to do so, and ensuring that the parties are able, so far as practicable, to participate fully in the proceedings is an important aspect of dealing with cases fairly and justly (rule 3(3)(c)).

The second question is whether the reinstated appeal against the financial penalty can be determined without a further hearing or should be remitted to the FTT to be redetermined by a differently constituted panel. The proceedings in this Tribunal have been conducted on paper and the parties have not had the opportunity to express a view on that question. I have already drawn attention to the weakness of the Council’s case and I will give it 21 days from the date of this decision to say whether it is content for me to make an order allowing the appeal against the financial penalty and setting the Council’s final order aside, or whether it would like the matter to be considered by the FTT at a further hearing.