Criticisms of tribunal system
Criticisms of the Tribunal System
Tribunals were originally created to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to courts—supposedly cheaper, faster, and more accessible. However, over time, several criticisms have been raised regarding their functioning:
1. Lack of Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice
Tribunals, often seen as informal, sometimes fail to provide the same procedural safeguards as courts. This raises concerns about bias, fairness, and due process.
Case: Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40
This landmark case established that decisions affecting a person's rights must follow principles of natural justice. The House of Lords quashed a police officer’s dismissal by a public authority for lack of a fair hearing. The case emphasized that tribunals must also respect procedural fairness; failing to do so risks judicial review.
Explanation: The case highlighted that tribunals, despite being less formal, cannot ignore basic rules of natural justice such as the right to be heard and absence of bias.
2. Delay and Backlog
Though tribunals were designed to expedite justice, many have become burdened with delays and backlogs.
Case: R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham (1998) QB 575
In this case, the applicant challenged the introduction of fees for court services (including tribunals), arguing that fees prevented access to justice. The court agreed that fees disproportionately delayed or denied justice to vulnerable people.
Explanation: Although not a direct criticism of tribunal procedure, this case underscored that tribunal access delays caused by cost or administrative inefficiency undermine their intended purpose.
3. Lack of Expertise and Inconsistent Decisions
Some tribunals are criticized for lacking sufficient expertise or for inconsistency in decision-making, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
Case: Eady J in R (on the application of Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28
This case discussed the relationship between First-tier tribunals and the Upper Tribunal in administrative justice. The Supreme Court stressed that tribunals must apply the law consistently and that inadequate training or lack of judicial expertise could lead to errors.
Explanation: The case highlighted the importance of tribunal expertise and the need for hierarchical appeal structures to ensure consistent decisions.
4. Limited Appeal Rights
Tribunals often have restricted appeal rights compared to courts, which can frustrate parties seeking justice.
Case: Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147
The House of Lords held that even if a tribunal or commission makes an error of law, its decisions can be reviewed unless explicitly ousted by statute. This case stressed that limited appeal rights in tribunals could sometimes be circumvented by judicial review, but it raised questions about finality and legal certainty.
Explanation: It shows that while tribunals are supposed to provide finality, lack of appeal can be problematic, and courts often intervene to correct legal errors.
5. Overlapping Jurisdictions and Confusion
There can be confusion due to overlapping jurisdictions between tribunals and courts, leading to forum shopping and jurisdictional disputes.
Case: R v Chief Immigration Officer, ex parte Nasrullah (1981) AC 738
The House of Lords dealt with jurisdictional issues between the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and courts. The case emphasized clarity is needed to avoid duplication and confusion over which forum should hear certain disputes.
Explanation: This points out that the tribunal system’s complexity and overlapping powers can hinder access to clear and effective justice.
Summary Table of Criticisms and Case Law
| Criticism | Case Law | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of procedural fairness | Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Natural justice must be observed by tribunals. |
| Delay and access issues | R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham (1998) | Fees and delays deny access to justice. |
| Lack of expertise/inconsistency | R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2011) | Importance of expertise and consistent decisions. |
| Limited appeal rights | Anisminic Ltd v FCC (1969) | Tribunal decisions subject to judicial review. |
| Overlapping jurisdiction issues | R v Chief Immigration Officer, ex parte Nasrullah (1981) | Need clarity to avoid jurisdiction confusion. |
Conclusion
While tribunals aim to make justice accessible and efficient, these criticisms backed by case law demonstrate challenges in procedural fairness, delays, expertise, appeal rights, and jurisdictional clarity. Continuous reform and oversight are essential to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of tribunal systems.
RELATED Blog
0 comments