Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon (R v London Rent Assessment Panel Committee, Ex parte Metropolitan Properties Co (F G C) Ltd)

A member of a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal must withdraw where the circumstances would cause reasonable, right-minded people to think that there was a real likelihood of bias. Actual bias or bad faith need not be proved, but surmise or mere conjecture is insufficient.

A lawyer who is acting against a party in one dispute should not simultaneously adjudicate another dispute involving that party. A decision reached with the participation of a disqualified member is voidable and may be quashed. A specialist tribunal may use its own knowledge and experience, but should explain a substantial departure from the evidence and submissions before it.

The landlords appealed against determinations of a rent assessment committee fixing fair rents for three flats at Oakwood Court. The committee's figures were below those proposed by the rent officer, the experts and, in two instances, the tenants.

The Divisional Court rejected challenges based on error of law and alleged bias. Further evidence before the Court of Appeal showed that the committee's chairman lived with his father in another block owned by the same group of landlords. Six days before the hearing, he had assisted his father in making representations against that group concerning the rent of their home.

The central questions were whether the committee's decision disclosed an error of law under section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, and whether the chairman's circumstances disqualified him for apparent bias.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal on the certiorari issue. It quashed the committee's decision and remitted the rent assessments for prompt rehearing by another committee. No order was made on the section 9 appeal apart from costs.

2. Apparent bias. Lord Denning MR held that the court does not inquire into the adjudicator's actual state of mind. It considers the impression given to right-minded people. The material circumstances must make a reasonable person think it likely or probable that the adjudicator would, or did, favour one side unfairly. Surmise, conjecture or bare suspicion is insufficient. Lord Justice Edmund Davies preferred the formulation that a decision cannot stand where right-thinking people would have solid grounds for reasonably suspecting bias. All three members agreed that the circumstances required the chairman's disqualification.

3. Application. The chairman was living with and assisting his father in a current rent dispute against the same group of landlords. He had helped prepare representations critical of them only six days before presiding over their appeal. Per Lord Denning MR, a person cannot act as an advocate for or against a party in one proceeding while sitting in judgment upon that party in another. Lord Justice Danckwerts considered that the chairman should at least have disclosed the circumstances and asked whether the parties objected. The unusual rent determinations and the chairman's subsequent affidavits strengthened the reasonable concern, although actual bias and bad faith were expressly disclaimed.

4. Pecuniary interest. The chairman had no direct pecuniary interest in the Oakwood Court flats. Any benefit which his father might obtain if those rents were later used as comparables was indirect, uncertain and too remote.

5. Reasons and error of law. Section 12 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 required reasons. The committee should have explained why it fixed rents below all the figures before it. Nevertheless, specialist and informal tribunals may draw on their own knowledge and are not held to the precision expected of a court. The deficiencies did not establish an error of law on the face of the record. The broad valuation conclusions were not invalidated by detailed criticisms concerning services, wages or management charges.

1. Court of Appeal: By judgment reported at [1969] 1 QB 577, unanimously allowed the certiorari appeal, quashed the Divisional Court's order and the committee's decision, and remitted the rent assessments to another committee. It made no order on the section 9 appeal save as to costs and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
2. High Court, Divisional Court: By a judgment dated 23 November 1967, rejected the challenge based on apparent bias and found no reversible error of law in the committee's decision. No report citation is stated.
3. London Rent Assessment Panel committee: On 26 April 1967, determined fair rents for three Oakwood Court flats at figures substantially below those proposed by the rent officer, the experts and the tenants.