Caffe Concerto Limited v Nicola Johnson

When deciding whether to extend time for a late rating appeal, the tribunal must apply the three-stage Denton approach carefully and proportionately.

A missed deadline is not automatically serious. The tribunal must assess the delay’s length and effect in context, examine why the default occurred, and consider all the circumstances. An isolated administrative error, a short delay causing no procedural prejudice, and prompt corrective action may justify an extension. The applicant need not establish in the abstract that an extension is in the interests of justice; the question is whether, having considered the relevant factors, an extension is appropriate.

The appellant, a ratepayer, completed the check and challenge stages of the non-domestic rating procedure. The Valuation Officer sent the decision by email rather than through the usual electronic portal. The appellant’s case-management system therefore generated no reminder, and the appeal to the Valuation Tribunal for England was lodged 38 days late.

The VTE recognised its discretion to extend time under regulation 6(3)(a) of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009, but dismissed the appeal after applying the Denton principles. The issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether that case-management decision was a proper exercise of discretion.

1. The appeal was allowed. The Upper Tribunal set aside the VTE’s decision, extended time for lodging the appeal to 20 August 2025, and reinstated the VTE proceedings.

2. Appeals against VTE case-management decisions are conducted by way of review. The Upper Tribunal may intervene where the discretion was exercised without taking relevant considerations into account or otherwise was not properly exercised.

3. The VTE was right to use the three-stage approach in Denton. At the first stage, seriousness or significance must be evaluated rather than assumed from the existence of default. Relevant matters include the length of the delay and its effect on the litigation.

4. At the second stage, the tribunal must examine why the default occurred. The unexpected transmission of the Valuation Officer’s decision by email, instead of through the portal which triggered the appellant’s reminder system, was relevant. The VTE gave insufficient weight to that feature.

5. At the third stage, the tribunal must consider all the circumstances and reach a proportionate result. Relevant circumstances included the isolated nature of the error, the absence of any history of default, the absence of procedural disruption or inefficiency, and prompt filing once the problem was discovered.

6. The VTE also misstated the question by asking whether the appellant had satisfied it that an extension was in the interests of justice. The correct question was whether, in light of the information provided and the Denton factors, extending time was appropriate.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal was allowed. The VTE’s decision was set aside, time was extended to 20 August 2025, and the proceedings were reinstated.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: The appeal against the rating assessment was dismissed as out of time.