Court of Appeal Rules Upper Tribunal Erred in Fettering Discretion Case Against Bradford Council
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was wrong to identify fettering of discretion by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and/or Bradford Metropolitan District Council in the imposition of financial penalties
Mr Kazi had a large portfolio of residential properties. Bradford MDC served a number of improvement notices on him. He complied in part. The council then imposed financial penalties upon him for failure to comply with those notices. Mr Kazi appealed against the same to the FTT, which dismissed his appeal and upheld the penalties. Mr Kazi further appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which allowed his appeal and substantially reduced the quantum of the penalties.
In the course of its decision, the Upper Tribunal concluded that the council’s policy, which it had applied in determining the appropriate penalties, fettered its discretion, and that in applying that policy the FTT too fettered its discretion.
The council sought and was granted permission to appeal against the same on the basis that the FTT (and the Upper Tribunal, on appeal) is not the appropriate forum in which to raise a challenge to policy per se, rather than its application on the facts (“Ground 1”), and that in any event the Upper Tribunal had been wrong to identify any fettering in the policy and/or by the FTT (“Ground 2”).
The Court of Appeal found that Ground 2 was made out: the Upper Tribunal had been wrong to identify any fettering. Having done so, it declined to determine Ground 1.
Riccardo Calzavara and Jeremy Ogilvie-Harris appeared on behalf of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.
Download judgment here.
