Consult Group Ltd v The Pensions Regulator
1. The Appellant lodged an appeal on 19 September 2024 indicating they wished to challenge a decision of the Respondent to impose a financial penalty. 2. The Tribunal sent an email to the Appellant dated 2 December 2024 informing them that the appeal failed to meet the requirements of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the...
2 min de lecture · 415 mots
1. The Appellant lodged an appeal on 19 September 2024 indicating they wished to challenge a decision of the Respondent to impose a financial penalty. 2. The Tribunal sent an email to the Appellant dated 2 December 2024 informing them that the appeal failed to meet the requirements of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the Rules”). The email explained that Rule 22(3) of the Rules provides that the Appellant must provide with the notice of appeal a copy of any written record of the decision the Appellant wishes to challenge and any statement of reasons for that decision that the Appellant has or can reasonably obtain. The email also said that the Appellant had not specified whether they want the appeal to be decided with or without a hearing, and the form was not signed to confirm the facts stated are true. 3. The Appellant failed to provide a copy of the decision against which they wish to appeal or otherwise respond to this email. 4. On 23 January 2025, Legal Officer Haji directed the Appellant to provide a copy of the decision they are seeking to challenge, sections 8 and 9 of the GRC1 form and a completed statement of truth by no later than 06 February 2025. The directions stated, “The Appellant is asked to note that failure to comply with the direction above could lead to the Tribunal striking out this appeal for failure to comply pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 without further direction.” 5. The Appellant has not responded to these directions. 6. Under Rule 8(3)(a), the Tribunal may strike out the proceedings if “the appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the appellant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them”. The Rules do not require the Appellant to be given a further opportunity to make representations before the proceedings are struck out. 7. The Appellant failed to comply with these directions, having been warned that this could lead to the proceedings being struck out. The Appellant has not contacted the Tribunal to explain their position or ask for additional time to comply. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to strike out the proceedings under Rule 8(3)(a).
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor
Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major
Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)
Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited
ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...