Gerard Griffin v The Registrar for Driving Instructors
1. On 2nd September 2024 Mr Griffin supplied an email to the Tribunal that purported to be an appeal. The email was not in correct form, nor did it contain the specified information, namely the appeal decision form. He was advised of the same and he provided further details, but not the decision itself. 2. As a result of the...
2 min de lecture · 323 mots
1. On 2nd September 2024 Mr Griffin supplied an email to the Tribunal that purported to be an appeal. The email was not in correct form, nor did it contain the specified information, namely the appeal decision form. He was advised of the same and he provided further details, but not the decision itself. 2. As a result of the lack a decision letter being provided, Case Management Directions, were supplied. 3. The Appellant did not reply to the Directions. 4. The Respondent did not comply with the Directions in that a Response was not provided, nor indeed was any correspondence forthcoming. 5. As a result further Case Management Directions were made requiring the decision letter be filed by 6th January 2025. No response was received. 6. By virtue of paragraph 8(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal may strike out a party’s case, in whole or in part, where: a. 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; b. the appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or c. the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding. 7. Here the Appellant has failed to co-operate with the proceedings, has failed to provide a decision to be appealed and therefore it is difficult to see any reasonable prospect of the case proceeding. The repeated failing to engage and assist with the proceedings leaves the Tribunal with no option. 8. The Appeal is therefore struck out with immediate effect. Signed: HH Judge David Dixon Date: 28th May 2025
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...