Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(H)1/07
File Number:	CH 2812 2005
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	27/07/2006
Date Added:	18/08/2006
Main Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Main Subcategory:	tribunal jurisdiction
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Collateral challenge to High Court order – whether tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear appeal depends on referral by local authority In June and October 2000 the local authority made two decisions which the claimant challenged unsuccessfully, first at internal review and subsequently at the local authority’s housing benefit review board. He then sought a judicial review of the review decisions and reached a written agreement with the local authority. The effect of the order would have been to give jurisdiction to the appeal tribunal when it acquired housing benefit appeals from 2 July 2001. Before the agreement reached the Administrative Court, one judge had refused permission on the papers. The agreement was put before another judge, who quashed the decisions. The legal department of the local authority decided that the order was not valid and instructed the appeals officer to ignore it. Accordingly, she refused to refer the cases to the tribunal. However the Appeals Service became aware of the cases and a district chairman gave directions for them to be listed. The local authority applied for an adjournment. The tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction and refused to adjourn. It allowed the appeals. On appeal to the Commissioner, the local authority argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear cases that had not been referred to it by the local authority and, in any case, it should have disregarded the order quashing the decisions. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the tribunal had no power to disregard the order of the court and had to accept it as valid (Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285 and Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97 followed) and there was no scope for a collateral challenge to the order in the tribunal proceedings, since the local authority had had a fair opportunity to challenge the order as soon as it was made (Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 followed) (paragraphs 16 and 17); 2. an order remains valid until set aside in spite of lack of jurisdiction (Re Gale (Deceased) [1966] Ch 236 and Re B (Court’s jurisdiction) [2004] 2 FLR 741) and it was clear that the court was entitled to enter on the consideration of the matter, so that, even if the principles set out in R(I) 17/94 applied to High Court orders as well as to tribunals, any procedural irregularities did not affect the validity of the order (paragraphs 18 to 20); 3. even if the Administrative Court might have accepted jurisdiction to review the refusal of the local authority to refer the case to the tribunal, that would not have deprived the tribunal of the power to determine whether it had jurisdiction (R v Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Zerek [1951] 2 KB 1 followed) (paragraphs 25 and 26 ); 4. the tribunal’s jurisdiction was not dependent on the local authority referring the case, as it is the legally qualified member who must decide whether an appeal is valid under regulation 20(1) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 and the local authority’s role was essentially administrative (paragraphs 27 to 34).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(H)_1-07_bvam.doc