UK case law
Consult Group Ltd v The Pensions Regulator
[2025] UKFTT GRC 757 · First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Pensions · 2025
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
1. The Appellant lodged an appeal on 19 September 2024 indicating they wished to challenge a decision of the Respondent to impose a financial penalty.
2. The Tribunal sent an email to the Appellant dated 2 December 2024 informing them that the appeal failed to meet the requirements of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the Rules”). The email explained that Rule 22(3) of the Rules provides that the Appellant must provide with the notice of appeal a copy of any written record of the decision the Appellant wishes to challenge and any statement of reasons for that decision that the Appellant has or can reasonably obtain. The email also said that the Appellant had not specified whether they want the appeal to be decided with or without a hearing, and the form was not signed to confirm the facts stated are true.
3. The Appellant failed to provide a copy of the decision against which they wish to appeal or otherwise respond to this email.
4. On 23 January 2025, Legal Officer Haji directed the Appellant to provide a copy of the decision they are seeking to challenge, sections 8 and 9 of the GRC1 form and a completed statement of truth by no later than 06 February 2025. The directions stated, “ The Appellant is asked to note that failure to comply with the direction above could lead to the Tribunal striking out this appeal for failure to comply pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 without further direction .”
5. The Appellant has not responded to these directions.
6. Under Rule 8(3)(a), the Tribunal may strike out the proceedings if “ the appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the appellant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them ”. The Rules do not require the Appellant to be given a further opportunity to make representations before the proceedings are struck out.
7. The Appellant failed to comply with these directions, having been warned that this could lead to the proceedings being struck out. The Appellant has not contacted the Tribunal to explain their position or ask for additional time to comply. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to strike out the proceedings under Rule 8(3)(a).