Rule 7: The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013/1169: Procedure for applying for and giving directions

(1)   The Tribunal may give a direction on the application of one or more of the parties or on its own initiative.

(2)   An application for a direction may be made—

(a)    by sending or delivering a written application to the Tribunal; or

(b)   orally during the course of a hearing.

(3)   An application for a direction must include the reason for making that application.

(4)   Except with the permission of the Tribunal, if a written application for a direction is made without the consent of every party the applicant must provide—

(a)    a copy of the proposed application to every other party before it is made; and

(b)   confirmation to the Tribunal that the other parties have been notified that any objection they wish to make to the application must be provided in accordance with paragraph (5).

(5)   A party who wishes to object to a written application that has been made to the Tribunal for a direction must send written notice of the objection to the Tribunal and the applicant for the direction.

(6)   Unless the Tribunal considers that there is good reason not to do so, the Tribunal must send written notice of any direction made by the Tribunal to every party and to any other person affected by the direction.

(7)   If a party or any other person sent notice under paragraph (6) of the direction made by the Tribunal wishes to challenge that direction, they may do so by applying for another direction which amends, suspends or sets aside the first direction.

There are three aspects of this rule that I would quite like to polish.

First, I would like to see a form for making applications for a direction. I understand that forms may come into existence in the future, but pending their creation, we will be at liberty to apply freestyle, so to speak.

Second, the application does not need to seem much support: subrule (3) requires that “the reason for making the application” must be given. That is a little too cursory for me. Faced with an application for, say, an adjournment, I would want to know the facts and see any documents which gave credence to the reason for the adjournment. For example, if medical grounds are relied upon, I would like to see a doctor’s letter. If the other side is not ready for the hearing, I would like to know more than simply “we would like an adjournment because we are not ready”.

Third, no time limit is given in subrule (5). In the absence of a time limit and the position of a respondent to an application, I suspect that I will be advising my clients to acknowledge receipt of the application as soon as it is received, giving a date by which a substantive response will be forthcoming.

Note to self: watch out for subrule 4(b): if the application is not made by consent, the applicant must make sure that the respondent has been notified of his/her right to oppose the application.