Blog: Law Reform Committee - Edition 9: Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Users’ meeting on 22 January 2025

Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Users’ meeting on 22 January 2025.

Eloise Illingworth of the PLA LRC attended the most recent Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Users’ meeting on 22 January 2025. In this blog, we have set out below the key takeaways and tips for PLA members and Tribunal users gleaned from the meeting.

The meeting was chaired by the President of the Lands Chamber, Edwin Johnson J, and its Deputy President, Martin Rodger KC.

1. CE Filing

Where documents have been filed using CE filing, there is no need to follow up with a confirmatory email.

2. Double-hatting / deployment pilot

The Upper Tribunal (“UT”) may sit on court and tribunal business at the same time on an “ad hoc” basis (for example, in relation to covenants - these can be enforced through the court, whilst applications to vary them are made to the UT; or in relation to Electronic Code Communications cases where 1954 Act and Code proceedings are fought side by side).  As before, requests for double-hatting arrangements should be made directly to the tribunal or to the Deputy President Martin Rodger KC directly.  However, no formal procedural rule to deal with “double-hatting” is forthcoming, and the deployment pilot has been discontinued. 

3. Costs rules

There is some desire to revert to the tribunal’s original rules in the first instance jurisdictions.  In 2010, the First Tier Tribunal (the “FTT”) was able to make costs orders.  From 2013, the FTT has only been able to order costs in specific jurisdictions, but the rules are somewhat imprecise and have led to some litigation.

However, this proposal will need consultation before being determined by the Tribunal Procedural Committee and it is unclear whether the item can be moved onto the agenda for this year. 

4. Building Safety Act cases

There is no power to transfer Building Safety Act cases to the UT.  The UT will only hear appeals.  The volume of cases in the FTT is not yet great.  Issues will probably appear in, for example, service charge cases. 

5. Timings

An appeal will be heard within 6 - 9 months. 

First references and Section 84 applications are heard within 18 months.

6. Transparency and Open Justice Board

The Board aims to promote transparent and open justice across courts and tribunals in England and Wales. 

Where third parties make a request for the tribunal to seek evidence, the tribunal will consider commercial sensitivities and the security of individuals (for example, whether home addresses would be disclosed).  However, such requests will generally not be successful.

Recently, there has been a request to hold part of the hearing in private for reasons of commercial sensitivity.  The tribunal can do this, but would scrutinise such a proposal carefully.

Anonymity would be granted to a minor in principle, but this issue has not yet arisen.

In relation to transparency, the Planning Inspectorate publishes a list of appeals coming up.  It was asked whether the tribunal could do something similar to this.  It would be useful to know when, for example, compensation references are forthcoming and there would probably also be interest in Building Safety Act cases.  [Note: From Monday 3 February 2025 Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber hearing lists will be published via the Court and tribunal hearings service.]

7. Litigants in person

The tribunal would like to raise the following points which will be relevant in cases involving litigants in person (“LiPs”).

7.1 Extension of time applications

It is recommended that when agreeing directions with a LiP, more time should be allowed than ordinarily in order to reduce the need for subsequent time extensions. 

If a LiP asks for an extension of time, legal professionals should be co-operative and should not force the LiP to make an application. 

If legal professionals apply for an extension of time, it is important to ask the LiP for an extension of time first.  Legal professionals should apply in good time before the deadline, so that the LiP has time to give their view.  LiPs sometimes perceive that the UT does whatever it is asked to by legal professionals.  The tribunal may grant extensions more sparingly when a LiP is on the other side. 

7.2 Hearing bundles

“Refereeing” hearing bundles takes up valuable tribunal time.  Every case requires an agreed hearing bundle.  If a LiP wants a document to be included in the bundle, the document(s) should be included.  The legal professional may say that the document is irrelevant. 

If there are objections to including a document (for example, that the document is in fact “without prejudice”), the document should be put in the bundle separately, and the objection should be flagged to the tribunal.

The legal professional should agree at the outset that the legal professional prepares the bundle.

7.3 Communications warning LiPs about the risk of costs

LiPs often send the tribunal copies of letters which they perceive as threatening or intimidating, and dealing with such correspondence is taking up tribunal time.   

It is acceptable to tell LiPs that if a party loses, they will be liable for their client’s costs if applicable (for example, in an appeal to the UT from a tribunal which did not originally have originally cost-shifting powers).

However, it is important not to give LiPs an incomplete impression of the tribunal’s cost powers.  Legal professionals ought also to point out the tribunal’s powers to protect parties from cost orders pursuant to rule 10.7 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, and let the LiP know that they may invoke this rule.

7.4 Other matters – pro bono and security

The tribunal sometimes refers LiPs to Advocate, the pro bono Bar unit. 

In the event of violence / potential violence, there should be a security liaison judge at each court and a security protocol can be invoked if necessary.

If members have any queries which be raised at the next Upper Tribunal (Land Chambers) users’ meeting, please contact Eloise Illingworth (Eloise.Illingworth@macfarlanes.com)

Eloise Illingworth
Macfarlanes LLP
Eloise.illingworth@macfarlanes.com