Hasan Kazi V Bradford MDC

When deciding whether to extend time for an appeal, a tribunal must engage with the specific explanation for delay. It must decide whether the explanation is truthful and adequate, or explain why it is rejected. Generic reasoning that fails to address a material explanation, such as illness affecting the appellant’s ability to appeal, may amount to failure to take account of a relevant consideration or failure to give adequate reasons. The resulting strike-out decision is liable to be set aside.

Mr Kazi appealed to the Upper Tribunal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to strike out his appeal against a financial penalty imposed by Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The FTT concluded that his appeal was substantially out of time and that his explanation was insufficient.

Mr Kazi had explained that he was elderly, became ill shortly after receiving the penalty notice, tested positive for Covid-19, and was unable to appeal until he recovered. The central issue was whether the FTT had adequately considered that explanation and given sufficient reasons for refusing an extension of time.

1. The appeal was allowed. The FTT’s decision was set aside, and Mr Kazi’s appeal against the financial penalty was reinstated.
2. The FTT had a discretion whether to extend time or strike out the appeal. In exercising that discretion, it had to engage with the particular explanation advanced for the delay and give adequate reasons for its decision.
3. The FTT’s reasons were expressed in entirely generic terms. They did not engage with Mr Kazi’s explanation that, being elderly, he contracted Covid-19 within about two weeks of receiving the notice and remained too unwell to submit his appeal until 19 August 2022.
4. The FTT did not state whether it accepted that account as truthful. If it rejected the account, it did not explain why. If it accepted it, it did not explain why the illness was an inadequate explanation for a delay of less than one month, particularly since the stated period of illness was broadly consistent with the delay.
5. The FTT may have considered that medical evidence was required, but it did not say so. The absence of adequate reasoning meant that the FTT either failed to take account of a relevant consideration or failed to explain why the explanation was inadequate.
6. Mr Kazi was directed to apply to the FTT for directions to pursue the reinstated appeal.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): in September 2022, struck out Mr Kazi’s appeal against the financial penalty as out of time.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): set aside the FTT’s decision and reinstated the appeal.