[2025] UKUT 115 (LC)

Fecha: 01-Ene-2025

The grounds of the appeal

The grounds of the appeal

85.

There are two grounds of appeal.

86.

The first ground of appeal (“Ground 1”) is that the FTT went wrong in raising the Contractual Liability Issue on its own initiative. The Appellant’s case is that the Contractual Liability Issue was not an issue in the Application and that the FTT was wrong to adjourn the Contractual Liability Issue and to give the Interim Decision Directions. Although Ground 1 is stated as a single ground of appeal, it is actually divided up into three sub-grounds, or supporting arguments, which are as follows:

(1)

There was no pleaded issue which had ever been articulated by the Applicants in relation to the contractual validity of the demands for the Payments made of the Applicants.

(2)

The Applicants, for whatever reason, chose to take no point in the Application on the validity of the demands made of them. In these circumstances the Applicants should be taken to have admitted or agreed the contractual validity of the demands, within the meaning of Section 27A(4)(a), so that it was not open to them or the FTT to raise an issue in relation to the contractual validity of the demands or in relation to the contractual liability of the Applicants to make the Payments.

(3)

The FTT exceeded its jurisdiction, embarking on its own inquisitorial process by identifying issues which none of the parties had asked it to resolve. The FTT thereby acted in breach of natural justice, exceeded its jurisdiction and went beyond the proper role of the FTT.

87.

The second ground of appeal (“Ground 2”) is that the Hearing was conducted in a way which was unfair and gave rise to the appearance of bias on the part of the FTT. As such, so it is contended, the decision of the FTT to admit the Contractual Liability Issue into the case and to give directions for its determination was unfair and should be set aside.