Rule 6: The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013/1169: Case management powers

(1)    Subject to the provisions of the 2007 Act and any other enactment, the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure.

(2)    The Tribunal may give a direction in relation to the conduct or disposal of proceedings at any time, including a direction amending, suspending or setting aside an earlier direction.

(3)    In particular, and without restricting the general powers in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Tribunal may—

(a)    extend or shorten the time for complying with any rule, practice direction or direction, even if the application for an extension is not made until after the time limit has expired;

(b)   consolidate or hear together two or more sets of proceedings or parts of proceedings raising common issues, or treat a case as a lead case (whether under rule 23 or otherwise);

(c)    permit or require a party to amend a document;

(d)   permit or require a party or another person to provide or produce documents, information or submissions to any or all of the following—

(i)                 the Tribunal;

(ii)               a party;

(iii)             in land registration cases, the registrar;

(e)    direct that enquiries be made of any person;

(f)    require a party to state whether that party intends to—

(i)                 attend,

(ii)               be represented, or

(iii)             call witnesses,

at the hearing;

(g)   deal with an issue in the proceedings as a preliminary issue;

(h)   hold a hearing to consider any matter, including a case management issue;

(i)     decide the form of any hearing;

(j)     adjourn or postpone a hearing;

(k)   require a party to produce a bundle for a hearing;

(l)     require a party to provide an estimate of the length of the hearing;

(m)  stay proceedings;

(n)   transfer proceedings to another court or tribunal if that other court or tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings and

(i)                 because of a change of circumstances since the proceedings were started, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings; or

(iii)             the Tribunal considers that the other court or tribunal is a more appropriate forum for the determination of the case;

(o)   suspend the effect of its own decision pending the determination by the Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal of an application for permission to appeal against, and any appeal or review of, that decision.

This rule confers far broader powers on the Tribunal than were enjoyed by the LVT and, like the overriding objective, bears a marked resemblance to the case management powers contained in the Civil Procedure Rules.

That said, not even Lord Woolf went as far as liberating the courts to “regulate their own procedure.”

All of the powers in this rule will undoubtedly have their part to play in the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal, but to my mind these are the most striking:

• Time limits can be extended even after they have expired. Remember old rule 24 under which applications to extend time had to be made before the time limit expired? On 01 July 2013 that have-I-asked-for-an-extension-of-time-in-time? moment will be gone, never to return;
• Cases which were representative cases under old rules 8 – 10 will become lead cases under the new. Lead cases are dealt with in more detail in rule 23 of the new rules;
• Third parties can be required to produce documents, information or submissions. My initial reaction to this was rather sceptical: how could it be enforced? As I read further however, new rule 8 and section 25 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 appeared over the horizon, and all became clear – and I hope that it will for my readers when I reach rule 8 tomorrow;
• What are the circumstances in which a Tribunal might consider that another court or tribunal was more appropriate? Continental Property Ventures Inc v White [2006] 1 EGLR 85 gives useful examples: cases where there are allegations of fraud; multiple issue cases where the Tribunal’s jurisdiction covers only one of those issues, and (my suggestion) cases where the amount of an equitable set off is likely to exceed the sums in respect of which a service charge determination is sought;
• Finally the Tribunal has power to suspend the effect of its own decision pending an appeal. Innocuous and tucked away at the end of a long list as it is, this rule may be vital in some cases in protecting lessees from forfeiture proceedings while they pursue their appeal.