Gholam Hossein Behjat v Crescent Trustees Limited
Decision date: 28 April 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 115 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether decisions made by a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) judge in August–September 2021 were valid when they purported to dispose of parallel county court proceedings. The Upper Tribunal held the 16 August 2021 strike-out (purporting to be a county court order) was made without jurisdiction and that the FTT's 30 September attempt to set that decision aside was procedurally defective; the 30 September order is set aside and the Upper Tribunal remade an order under its rule 51 setting aside the 16 August decision and remitted the matters for proper directions and determination. The case includes practical guidance about clearly identifying the judicial capacity in deployment arrangements where judges sit concurrently for the FTT and county court.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The clear ratio is that an FTT judge sitting and acting under FTT procedural rules lacks power to make substantive county court orders; any such disposals made in that capacity are without jurisdiction. Where a tribunal order disposes of proceedings and was made without jurisdiction as a procedural irregularity, the tribunal (or Upper Tribunal) may set it aside under the rule empowering it to do so (rule 51), but must identify a legal basis and follow fair procedure when doing so.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggests (obiter) that deployment and directions should expressly identify the legal source of a county court judge’s authority and specify when a judge is sitting as tribunal judge or as county court judge; it warns that treating FTT and county court processes as a single unified procedure risks confusion and should be clarified.