Appeals from tribunal decisions
Appeals from Tribunal Decisions – Overview
Tribunals are specialized bodies established to resolve disputes in specific areas like employment, immigration, tax, or administrative matters. Their decisions are often subject to appeal, but appeals from tribunal decisions are generally more limited compared to ordinary courts. Appeals can be based on points of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural fairness, depending on the statute governing the tribunal.
Key Case Laws Explaining Appeals from Tribunal Decisions:
1. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] AC 147 (HL)
Facts:
Anisminic challenged a decision by the Foreign Compensation Commission that they were not entitled to compensation for expropriation of property abroad.
Issue:
Whether the Commission’s decision was a “determination” that could be challenged in court.
Held:
The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a tribunal or public body could render the decision a nullity, even if the statute stated that the tribunal’s decisions were “final.” Thus, courts could intervene on the grounds of error of law.
Significance:
This case fundamentally altered the approach to appeals from tribunals by ruling that tribunals do not have unlimited finality. Courts can review tribunal decisions if there is an error of law, even if the statute attempts to oust judicial review.
2. R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682
Facts:
This case concerned a tribunal decision where the question was whether the decision could be appealed on a question of law.
Issue:
Whether appeals from tribunals are restricted to questions of law only or can also extend to facts.
Held:
The House of Lords confirmed that appeals from tribunals are usually confined to questions of law, unless the statute provides otherwise. The court emphasized that tribunals’ findings of fact are generally final.
Significance:
This case established the principle that appeals from tribunals are typically limited to legal errors, not factual errors, preserving the tribunal’s role as fact-finder.
3. R (on the application of Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28
Facts:
The issue was whether decisions of the Upper Tribunal (created under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) can be appealed to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on points of law.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that appeals on points of law from the Upper Tribunal to higher courts are allowed, and such appeals can be reviewed on a standard similar to judicial review.
Significance:
This case clarified the structure of appeals in the reformed tribunal system, affirming that appeals from the Upper Tribunal are judicial in nature and can be reviewed on points of law.
4. Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143
Facts:
Boddington challenged a penalty imposed by the British Transport Police under a by-law, claiming it was invalid.
Issue:
Whether a person can challenge the validity of a tribunal or authority’s decision on a point of law when being prosecuted or penalized.
Held:
The House of Lords held that individuals are entitled to raise errors of law as a defense in proceedings, effectively allowing a limited appeal or review on legal grounds.
Significance:
This case emphasized that legal errors in tribunal decisions can be challenged directly as part of enforcement or appeal proceedings, reinforcing access to legal recourse against tribunal decisions.
5. O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
Facts:
The claimants sought judicial review of decisions made by a tribunal.
Issue:
Whether a claim for judicial review could be substituted by an ordinary appeal procedure.
Held:
The House of Lords held that when a tribunal’s decision affects a person’s rights, judicial review is the proper route for challenging decisions involving errors of law, especially when no other appeal mechanism exists.
Significance:
This case distinguished between appeals and judicial review, showing that tribunal decisions can be challenged through judicial review if statutory appeal routes are inadequate or non-existent.
Summary Table of Principles from These Cases:
| Case Name | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Anisminic Ltd v FCC | Errors of law by tribunals make decisions nullities; courts can intervene despite "finality" clauses. |
| R v Lord President, ex parte Page | Appeals are generally limited to questions of law, not facts. |
| Cart v Upper Tribunal | Points of law from Upper Tribunal decisions are appealable to higher courts. |
| Boddington v British Transport Police | Legal errors in tribunal decisions can be challenged as a defense in enforcement proceedings. |
| O'Reilly v Mackman | Judicial review is the proper route for challenging tribunal decisions when no appeal exists. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments