Wyldecrest Parks Management Ltd, Re

Under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the First-tier Tribunal must itself send its directions to each party and person affected by them. Rule 7(6) does not permit it to require one party to perform that function.

The exception for a good reason concerns a reason not to send the directions, not a reason to delegate their service. The general powers in rules 6(3)(d) and 16(2) do not alter that conclusion. Directions may require action, carry serious consequences, and engage statutory time limits for review and appeal. Their transmission by the Tribunal safeguards certainty and institutional independence.

The appellant applied to the First-tier Tribunal for review of pitch fees payable by 13 occupiers of a park home site. The FTT directed the appellant to send its initial directions and procedural statement to the proposed respondents, on pain of strike-out.

Following a fresh consideration by an FTT judge, the appellant challenged that requirement. The FTT had treated Hyslop v 38/41 Residents Co Ltd [2017] UKUT 398 (LC) and its general case-management powers as permitting service by a party. This re-made decision followed the setting aside under rule 54 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 of an earlier Upper Tribunal decision, [2024] UKUT 355 (LC).

The issue was whether rules 6(3), 16(2) and 7(6) of the FTT Rules permitted the FTT to require an applicant to send the FTT's own directions to respondents.

1. Appeal allowed. The direction requiring the appellant to serve the FTT's directions on the intended respondents was set aside. It is for the FTT to send those directions itself.

2. Rule 7(6) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 imposes that responsibility on the FTT. In its context, the proviso for a good reason means a good reason for directions not to be sent, rather than a power to require another party to send them. The contrast with rule 7(4), which expressly requires an applicant for directions to notify other parties, confirms that construction.

3. The FTT's broad case-management power in rule 6(3)(d), and rule 16(2), which may permit a party to provide a document in appropriate circumstances, do not authorise delegation of service of the FTT's own directions. Directions require action and non-compliance can have serious consequences. Service by a party also creates risks of dispute about receipt and timing, and can compromise the appearance of the FTT's independence.

4. The statutory review and appeal provisions reinforce that result. Rules 5(3) and 52(2) calculate time from the date when the Tribunal sends notice or reasons. If a party transmits directions, those provisions do not operate as intended and time may not begin to run.

5. Hyslop v 38/41 Residents Co Ltd [2017] UKUT 398 (LC) did not decide this issue. It concerned service of a notice of application and of a final decision, not the FTT's directions. Its reasoning that the Tribunal cannot delegate delivery of its final decision supported the conclusion, but its earlier ruling on notices of application did not govern directions.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): In this re-made decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the FTT's service direction. The decision was made after its earlier decision, [2024] UKUT 355 (LC), had been set aside under rule 54 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 4 October 2024, an FTT judge refused to vary directions requiring the applicant to send the FTT's directions to the proposed respondents.