SHELFSIDE (HOLDINGS) LTD v VALE OF WHITE HORSE DISTRICT COUNCIL
Decision date: 21 June 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] UKUT 259 (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
The case concerns an appeal against a s.9A compliance notice requiring removal/replacement of steps/veranda at a mobile home park on the basis they were combustible and breached a licence separation distance. The First-tier Tribunal confirmed the notice; on appeal the Upper Tribunal held the FTT was entitled to apply the civil standard (balance of probabilities) and to rely on general knowledge that uPVC is generally combustible. The UT held that once the council relied on the material type and the appellant admitted it, the evidential burden shifted to the appellant to prove the material was non-combustible; the appeal was dismissed.
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
An appeal under s.9A is a rehearing in which the tribunal decides for itself whether non-compliance occurred and applies the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), not a criminal standard; the local authority must prove non-compliance, but where it relies on the general characteristics of an admitted material (e.g. uPVC being combustible), the evidential burden shifts to the appellant to demonstrate the material is non-combustible.
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 expresses that the compliance notice procedure is a flexible remedial alternative to criminal prosecution and that serving a compliance notice does not require the local authority to satisfy criminal proof standards; criminal proceedings under ss.9 or 9B would, by contrast, require proof beyond reasonable doubt.