Christopher Richardson v Oldham Council

On an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal may interfere only for a material error of law. Findings of fact cannot be revisited unless irrational. Statutory guidance issued under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 must be read fairly, as a whole and in context. A tribunal may adjudicate disputes about its meaning. A local authority has no statutory obligation to publish its own policy interpreting that guidance. Such policies may create inconsistent additional layers of interpretation and undermine the national framework. Operators must comply with the current guidance unless and until it is amended by the Secretary of State.

The appellant operated a pet-animal business and applied to Oldham Council to renew his licence under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. The Council refused the application because it was not satisfied that the licence conditions would be met, including in light of the appellant’s disagreement with aspects of the statutory guidance.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal. Permission to appeal was granted on the question whether the Council was required to prepare written policies interpreting the statutory guidance. The central issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether the absence of such policies, or the First-tier Tribunal’s interpretation of the guidance, disclosed a material error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal correctly identified and applied the relevant statutory framework, adequately considered the evidence, gave sufficient reasons and reached a rational conclusion. There was no material error of law.
2. Under section 11(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction is confined to points of law. Factual findings cannot be disturbed merely because another tribunal might have evaluated the evidence differently. Intervention requires irrationality or another material legal error.
3. Regulation 14 of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 requires a local authority to have regard to Secretary of State guidance. The guidance must be read fairly, as a whole and in its context. Where its meaning is disputed, the tribunal may adjudicate the dispute. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the word “must” made the relevant higher enclosure standards mandatory after the specified period.
4. The Regulations impose no duty on a local authority to publish a policy interpreting the statutory guidance or codes of practice. The statutory scheme assigns responsibility for issuing and maintaining those materials to the Secretary of State. Local policies dealing substantively with licence applications could create inconsistent interpretations and undermine the intended national framework.
5. An operator may make representations to the Secretary of State seeking amendment of guidance, but must comply with the guidance currently in force. The Council’s absence of an interpretive policy therefore did not affect the lawfulness of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision dismissed. The Upper Tribunal found no material error of law.
• First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber): by decision dated 12 December 2023, appeal against Oldham Council’s refusal of the licence renewal was dismissed.
• Oldham Council: licence renewal refused on 5 April 2023.