Maros Kravec v Salford City Council

A tribunal hearing is unfair where a tribunal gives a party materially incorrect information about the availability of remote evidence, the party complies with that information, and the tribunal then penalises the party for failing to correct its own mistake. The unfairness is particularly acute where the result is that relevant witnesses cannot give live evidence or be cross-examined, their written evidence is given little weight, and an adverse inference is drawn from their absence. The appropriate remedy is to set aside the decision and remit the matter for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.

Mr Maros Kravec appealed civil penalties imposed by Salford City Council in respect of three properties. The First-tier Tribunal directed that the appeals be heard together.

The appellant and his witnesses lived in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The First-tier Tribunal repeatedly informed him that evidence could not be given remotely from those jurisdictions, directed that evidence could be given remotely only from Poland, and later treated the appellant and his witnesses as unavailable for cross-examination when they did not attend in person. It admitted their written evidence but gave it little weight, drew an adverse inference, and increased the penalties.

The central issue was whether the hearing had been unfair because the appellant and his witnesses had been prevented from giving live evidence as a result of the First-tier Tribunal’s incorrect information.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to be reheard by a different panel.
2. The governing statutory background was that a local housing authority may impose a financial penalty under section 249A of the Housing and Planning Act 2004 where it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that relevant housing offences have been committed. The substantive grounds challenging the penalties did not need to be determined because the procedural error required a rehearing.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had taken responsibility for informing the appellant that evidence could not be given remotely from the Czech Republic. It gave that information repeatedly and in clear terms, without explaining the basis for it. The relevant jurisdictions permitted voluntary evidence by video link in UK civil, commercial and administrative tribunals, subject to the tribunal’s discretion.
4. Although the appellant might have discovered the correct position by reading the guidance, it was unfair to penalise him for complying with the tribunal’s directions. The same applied notwithstanding that counsel had not identified the error at the hearing.
5. The error had material consequences. The appellant and his witnesses were unable to give live evidence or be cross-examined. Their written evidence was given little weight, and the tribunal drew an adverse inference from the appellant’s failure to correct the tribunal’s mistake. There was no proper basis for concluding that he had deliberately avoided giving live evidence. In those circumstances, the appellant had not received a fair hearing.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 17 April 2025 was set aside. The appeals were remitted for rehearing by a different panel.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): The tribunal heard the consolidated appeals against civil penalties, gave little weight to the appellant’s and witnesses’ written evidence, and increased the penalties. It later reduced one penalty when granting permission on one ground.