Mahendra Maharaj v Liverpool City Council

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal raises neither an important point of principle or practice nor any other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. Errors by a first-tier tribunal on one, legally distinct financial-penalty notice do not, without a proper evidential basis, undermine its separate findings of fact and credibility on another notice.

A review is unavailable under the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 where the Tribunal overlooked no material legislative provision or binding authority and no subsequently binding decision could materially affect its decision.

The landlord sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal’s substantive decision of 20 May 2022. That decision had quashed a financial penalty for an alleged failure to provide gas safety certificates, but had upheld a separate penalty for breach of a six-monthly inspection condition.

The proposed appeal alleged that the First-tier Tribunal’s errors concerning the gas-safety penalty might have tainted its factual and credibility findings concerning the inspection penalty. The landlord did not allege an error of law by the Upper Tribunal and relied solely on an asserted compelling reason for a further appeal.

1. Permission to appeal was refused. The proposed appeal raised no important point of principle or practice and disclosed no other, still less compelling, reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. The Tribunal’s criticism of the First-tier Tribunal’s treatment of the gas-safety financial penalty did not provide a basis for challenging the separate inspection penalty. The former decision concerned an offence that had not been properly alleged or particularised and was time-barred. Those errors had no conceivable relevance to the First-tier Tribunal’s fact-finding process on the inspection issue.
3. There was no arguable basis for saying that the First-tier Tribunal’s findings on the inspection penalty were tainted, that its approach on the gas-safety issue had coloured those findings, or that its assessment of the relative reliability and credibility of the landlord and tenant was unsound. The asserted concern that justice had not been seen to be done was therefore rejected.
4. The Tribunal also declined to review its substantive decision. Under rules 56(1) and 57 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, it had overlooked no material legislative provision or binding authority, and no later binding decision could have materially affected the result.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from its substantive decision of 20 May 2022. It also declined to review that decision.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), substantive decision: Allowed the landlord’s appeal concerning the gas-safety financial penalty and quashed that penalty; dismissed the appeal concerning the inspection-condition penalty and affirmed it.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Confirmed two final notices imposing financial penalties. The judgment gives no citation for that decision.