Tribunals in the UK
Tribunals in the UK
What are Tribunals?
Tribunals are specialized judicial bodies that deal with disputes in specific areas of law, such as employment, immigration, social security, tax, and administrative matters. They provide a more accessible, faster, and less formal alternative to the courts. Tribunals are part of the administrative justice system and operate independently of government departments.
Structure of Tribunals
The UK tribunal system is broadly divided into two tiers:
First-tier Tribunal (FTT): This is the first level where disputes are heard. It is divided into chambers that deal with different subject areas, such as Immigration and Asylum, Social Entitlement, Health, Education and Social Care, Tax, and others.
Upper Tribunal: The Upper Tribunal hears appeals from the First-tier Tribunal on points of law. It also has judicial review powers over decisions made by tribunals and some government bodies.
Above the Upper Tribunal is the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, the Supreme Court for further appeals.
Jurisdiction and Role
Tribunals have jurisdiction over matters specified by statute. They apply the relevant law and facts to resolve disputes, often dealing with specialized or technical matters that ordinary courts may not handle efficiently.
Key Cases on Tribunals in the UK
1. R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28
Facts: This case concerned whether the courts have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Upper Tribunal in immigration cases.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the decisions of the Upper Tribunal are subject to judicial review by the courts. It established that the Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record, but its decisions can be challenged on procedural or jurisdictional grounds in the High Court or Court of Appeal.
Significance: It confirmed the scope of judicial review over tribunal decisions, ensuring accountability and legality in tribunal rulings.
2. R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28
Note: This case has already been mentioned above.
2. R (on the application of SB) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012] EWCA Civ 969
Facts: SB challenged the procedure of the First-tier Tribunal in social security cases, particularly around whether the tribunal could refuse to admit evidence that had not been submitted on time.
Held: The Court of Appeal emphasized the need for procedural fairness but also the importance of efficiency. The tribunal’s discretion to exclude late evidence was legitimate, provided the parties had a fair opportunity to present their case.
Significance: This case clarifies the balance tribunals must strike between fairness and efficiency in their procedures.
3. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
Facts: Anisminic challenged a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission, arguing the decision was legally flawed.
Held: The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a public body, including tribunals, renders its decision a nullity and is subject to judicial review, even if statute attempts to exclude such review.
Significance: This landmark case established the principle that tribunals cannot oust judicial review by making errors of law, which is fundamental in administrative law.
4. R (Hassan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60
Facts: This case dealt with the issue of the right to a fair hearing before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), a tribunal dealing with national security cases.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that SIAC must provide sufficient disclosure and fair procedures to appellants, even in sensitive national security matters.
Significance: It highlights the importance of fairness and procedural safeguards in tribunal proceedings, even where sensitive issues like national security are involved.
5. R (on the application of Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1627
Facts: Moseley challenged the legality of the council’s decision after the tribunal refused to admit new evidence.
Held: The Court of Appeal emphasized the tribunal’s role in managing evidence and confirmed that the tribunal’s decisions on admitting evidence are generally not subject to challenge unless there is a serious procedural irregularity.
Significance: It reinforces the principle that tribunals have broad discretion in evidence management, but must exercise this fairly.
6. Patel v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 303
Facts: Patel challenged a decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal regarding his fitness to practice.
Held: The Court of Appeal held that tribunals must give clear reasons for their decisions and that their conclusions must be rational and supported by evidence.
Significance: This case underscores the importance of reasoned decisions in tribunal judgments, ensuring transparency and fairness.
Summary of Key Principles from Case Law
Judicial Review: Tribunals’ decisions can be reviewed for legality, fairness, and procedural correctness (Anisminic, Cart).
Procedural Fairness: Tribunals must balance fairness with efficiency and may exclude evidence if procedural rules are followed (SB, Moseley).
Reasoned Decisions: Tribunals must provide clear reasons that are logical and evidence-based (Patel).
Transparency: Even in sensitive matters like national security, tribunals must ensure fair procedures (Hassan).
Tribunal Hierarchy: The Upper Tribunal reviews decisions from the First-tier Tribunal, and decisions can be further appealed or judicially reviewed depending on the issue (Cart).
RELATED Blog
0 comments