Vinod Nair v Adiya Cherukovilakath & Ors

A tribunal may proceed in a party’s absence where the party was notified of the hearing and proceeding is in the interests of justice. Although the tribunal should expressly address that requirement, an omission will not justify intervention where the circumstances plainly establish that proceeding was appropriate.

Remote hearings are not standard and require a good reason. A party seeking one must explain, with sufficient detail, why attendance in person is prevented. General references to caring responsibilities, coupled with an unwillingness to provide an explanation even confidentially, do not establish a good reason.

The appellant, a landlord, appealed against rent repayment orders made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in favour of three former tenants. The FTT had found that he had committed the offence of managing an unlicensed HMO, and ordered repayment of 65% of the rent for the relevant period.

The appeal challenged the FTT’s refusal of the appellant’s applications for a remote hearing and its decision to proceed in his absence. The appellant argued that his absence had prevented proper consideration of his conduct and financial circumstances. The central issue was whether the FTT had been entitled to proceed with the hearing under rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

1. Appeal dismissed. The rent repayment orders made by the FTT stood, and the stay of enforcement was lifted.
2. Remote hearings are no longer standard. They may be ordered where there is a good reason, but an applicant must explain why attendance in person is impossible or impracticable. The appellant repeatedly referred to non-discretionary family caring responsibilities but did not say what those responsibilities were or why they prevented attendance. The matter could have been explained confidentially to the FTT.
3. Under rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the FTT could proceed only if the appellant had been notified of the hearing, or reasonable steps had been taken to notify him, and it considered that proceeding was in the interests of justice. The FTT did not expressly address the second requirement, but the omission was immaterial. The appellant had known of the hearing for months, had provided written representations, and had given no sufficient explanation for his absence. The FTT would inevitably have been entitled to conclude that it was in the interests of justice to proceed.
4. The decision to proceed was a case-management decision within the FTT’s discretion and had been made for good reason. There was no basis for appellate interference.
5. The appellant’s arguments concerning conduct and finances did not justify setting aside the orders. The award was not high, and his evidence showed that he had savings. His attendance would not have made a material difference to the outcome.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Following conjoined applications, the FTT found that the appellant had committed the offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 and made rent repayment orders of 65% of the relevant rent in favour of the tenants.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal was dismissed. The FTT’s orders stood and the stay of enforcement was lifted.