Adami v The Ethical Standards Officer of the Standards Board for England

An appellate court should not ordinarily quash a tribunal decision solely because its reasons are inadequate where the decision may otherwise be valid. Subject to the risk of impermissible ex post facto rationalisation, the usual and proportionate course is to remit the matter for adequate reasons or for reconsideration and a fresh reasoned decision.

This is particularly so for an independent specialist statutory tribunal. The court should not, without strong contrary circumstances, nullify a potentially rational regulatory decision when the reasons defect can be remedied by remission.

A case tribunal of the Adjudication Panel for England found that Mr Adami, a district councillor, had breached ten provisions of his authority’s code of conduct. It disqualified him from office for four years. The tribunal adopted the Ethical Standards Officer’s reasoning but did not explain why it rejected Mr Adami’s responses to the allegations.

On a statutory appeal under the Local Government Act 2000, Bean J rejected Mr Adami’s substantive challenges but quashed the tribunal’s findings and sanction because its reasons were inadequate. The Ethical Standards Officer’s second appeal was confined to the appropriate remedy for that defect: whether the matter should instead have been remitted for adequate reasons or reconsideration.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Auld gave the principal judgment, with which Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Lloyd agreed.

1. The High Court had power on this statutory appeal to remit the claim or an issue to the tribunal, or to order a new hearing. The breadth of CPR 52 permitted a remission concerning the adequacy of the tribunal’s reasons, whether or not the decision was first set aside.
2. The guidance in [2002] 1WLR 2409 was of broad application. An appellate court must guard against a tribunal supplying reasoning which it had not in fact used, or rationalising its decision after the event. That risk is not inevitable. It was not likely here, where the factual findings were unchallenged and there was no other basis to impugn the integrity or likely rationality of the tribunal’s decision.
3. Inadequate reasons alone should normally lead to remission for explanation or reconsideration, rather than quashing without more. Quashing a potentially valid decision of an independent specialist tribunal without giving it that opportunity was disproportionate and risked usurping the statutory decision-maker’s function. The passage of about 18 months did not make reconsideration impracticable or render the risk of improper ex post facto reasoning decisive.
4. The tribunal’s findings of breach and its disqualification order were set aside. The matter was remitted to the same case tribunal to reconsider and give adequately formulated reasons on proof of the alleged breaches and, insofar as affected, the appropriate sanction. There was no order as to costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Allowed the Ethical Standards Officer’s second appeal and remitted the matter to the same case tribunal: [2005] EWCA Civ 1754.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — Bean J quashed the case tribunal’s findings and four-year disqualification order solely because the tribunal’s reasons were inadequate, having rejected the other grounds of challenge.
• Adjudication Panel for England case tribunal — On 24 June 2004, found breaches of the local authority code of conduct and disqualified Mr Adami from holding councillor office for four years.