No removal of right of appeal without clear and express wording

1 November 2012 by

The Queen on the application of Totel Ltd v The First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs  [2012] EWCA Civ 1401 – read judgment

Tax litigation is not the most obvious hunting ground for human rights points but if claimants feel sufficiently pinched by what they perceive as unfair rules, there is nothing to stop them appealing to the courts’ scrutiny of the lawfulness of those rules.

Human rights were not raised per se in this appeal but constitutional principles which arguably play the same role made all the difference to the outcome.

This case concerned the removal of a right of appeal by an Order in Parliament that stopped the appellant company (T) in its tracks, so naturally it turned to judicial review to find a remedy that the tax tribunal was not prepared to grant. T prayed in aid a fundamental principle of our unwritten constitution set out in  R (Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, the Environment and Regions [2000] 2 WLR 15:

Parliament does not lightly take the exceptional course of delegating to the executive the power to amend primary legislation. When it does so the enabling power should be scrutinised, should not receive anything but a narrow and strict construction and any doubts about its scope should be resolved by a restrictive approach.[35]

Parliament should be told, in clear terms, if the executive intends to amend primary legislation. As Lord Hoffmann observed, in the context of the purported removal of a fundamental right, if clear words are not used, the full implication and width of the power may pass unnoticed in the democratic process (R v Home Secretary, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131E-F ).

Background 

The details of the case can be stated very shortly, since the interlocking tax and finance laws and subordinate legislation need not concern us here (they are set out in full in an annexe to the judgment). T company had sought a decision from the VAT and Duties Tribunal that it would suffer hardship if it had to fulfil an assessment to VAT. In the normal run of things, T would have had a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 . But a statutory order had been introduced in 2009 purported to remove that right. As this was delegated legislation, T challenged its lawfulness.  The question turned on whether the words conferring the power to revoke the right of appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal in relation to a hardship decision  were sufficiently clear.

The Court upheld the appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning

The 2008 Finance Act did not give a power to revoke the right of appeal in relation to hardship decisions conferred by s.11 of the 2007 Act; the insertion of the statutory order purporting to do so was outside the power conferred by that Act.

There was no reason in principle why the power conferred by one statute cannot amend the provisions of another by delegated legislation. But the language has to clear and express so that it is plain that Parliament understood the nature and scope of the power it was conferring on the executive.  The true principle is that expressed in Bennion on Statutory Construction (5th Edn. Section 81 p.293-4):

An Act may confer power for the amendment of itself or another Act by delegated legislation. An amendment made by the use of such a power is as effective as if made directly by an Act.

Had the words in the 2008 Act been sufficiently clear, the rules in the 2009 Order could have achieved their purpose.

The Court rejected T’s further argument, that it had been deprived of a fundamental right to appeal. T sought to invoke the principle expressed in ex p. Simms that clear words would be needed to remove a fundamental right. Moses LJ took a robust approach to this argument. There was no “fundamental right” in play here.

It is highfaluting to describe a right of appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper tribunal in relation to a hardship application as a fundamental right, analogous to freedom of expression, or access to justice. The right is a right to appeal, only with permission on a point of law. Since judicial review is available, Totel was not deprived of a very great deal [32]

Lady Justice Arden made a further point, obiter as it was not raised in the parties’ submissions, that there is a presumption that Parliament did not intend to enact retrospective legislation, as Lord Rodger explained in Wilson v First County Trust [2004] 1 AC 816.  Viewed from the perspective of retrospectivity and access to court, in her judgment, the removal of the right of appeal did involve an interference with a “fundamental right”.

To bring to an end a right of appeal in existing proceedings had been held to constitute such retrospective legislation even though the decision sought to be appealed had not been made. Accordingly, clear wording in s.124 would be necessary to confer the power to remove a right of appeal in existing proceedings.
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. Ian Josephs says:

    When parents lose a case (and their children) in the family courts and the judge rounds off the hearing with the stock phrase “I REFUSE LEAVE TO APPEAL” the parens think it is all over and their lawyers encourage them in that false belief.
    Only if the parents consult John Hemming ,myself,or someone similar to me will they get told that they have a right to an oral hearing at which they can in fact request leave to appeal.
    Such is the duplicity of our family law system and its practitioners !

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: