Mahendra Maharaj v Liverpool City Council

9. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is not a proper case in which to grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The proposed appeal raises no important point of principle or practice; and there is no other reason (still less any compelling reason) for the Court of Appeal to hear any appeal from the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal notes that the appellant alleges no error or errors of law in the Tribunal’s decision. For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal also makes it clear that there is no proper basis for the Tribunal to review its decision in accordance with rules 56(1) and 57 of the applicable Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 : when making its decision the Tribunal overlooked no legislative provision or binding authority which could have had any material effect on that decision; and, since the Tribunal's decision, no court has made any decision which is binding on the Tribunal and which, had it been made before the Tribunal's decision, could have had any material effect on that decision. 10. The Tribunal disagreed with the FTT’s decision in relation to FPN 1, and it was critical of its approach and its reasoning in finding that an offence had been made out, to the criminal standard of proof, which had not been alleged or properly particularised, and which was, in any event, statutorily time-barred. However, none of this is of any conceivable relevance to the FTT’s fact-finding processes. Nor does it cast any arguable doubt upon the FTT’s assessment of the relative reliability and credibility of the evidence of the appellant and Mr Hourston. The Tribunal expressly rejects the submissions that: (1) the FTT’s findings of fact with respect to FPN 2 were potentially tainted, such that the Tribunal could not have been satisfied that the FTT had made sound factual findings relating to that second notice; (2) the FTT’s approach to the fact finding exercise concerning FPN 1 was so skewed against the appellant that there was a real risk that such approach coloured, albeit unintentionally, its approach to the fact finding exercise relating to FPN 2; and (3) this raises any real concern as to whether justice was not only done but was seen to be done. 11. The Tribunal therefore declines to review its decision; and it refuses permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. His Honour Judge Hodge QC 21 June 2022