The Law Commission

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Background to the report

1.1      On 18 May 2000 the Lord Chancellor^[1] appointed Sir Andrew Leggatt to undertake a review of tribunals. The Leggatt report was published on 16 August 2001.^[2] The report noted that, in the context of land, property and housing tribunals "there are confusing overlaps of jurisdiction between courts and tribunals, as well as between tribunals" and that "an expert decision-making forum, without overlapping jurisdictions, is a precondition of effective procedural reform".^[3]
1.2      The Leggatt report recommended that the Law Commission should be asked to work out "a comprehensive solution" for land, property and housing tribunals, with a view in particular to removing any jurisdictional overlaps and any scope for forum shopping. The project was formally referred to us on 8 November 2002. Our terms of reference were as follows.

"In the context provided for the future of tribunals by the report of the Leggatt Review of Tribunals^[4] and the Modernising Tribunals programme, to review the law relating to the tribunals listed below, including their procedures and composition, and in particular the relationship between the jurisdictions of those tribunals and of the courts or other tribunals, with the aim of making recommendations to ensure that the objectives of the Leggatt Review, as identified in its terms of reference,^[5] are met in relation to the work of those tribunals.

The tribunals are as follows:

(1) the Agricultural Lands Tribunal,^[6]

(2) the Commons Commissioners,

(3) the Lands Tribunal,

(4) the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal,⁶

(5) the Rent Assessment Committees,⁶

(6) the Rent Tribunal,⁶

(7) the Valuation Tribunal,⁶ and

(8) such other related tribunals as the Law Commission and the Lord Chancellor's Department may agree."^[7]

1.3      We published our Consultation Paper, Land, Valuation and Housing Tribunals, in December 2002. We have been greatly assisted by the 43 responses we received to the consultation from a range of interested parties. We are grateful to consultees for the time spent considering and responding to the questions in the consultation paper. A list of respondents by category is in Appendix C.
1.4      We have also been very much assisted by the members of our advisory group. We have held three meetings of the group since the start of the project. We are very grateful to the group members for their involvement. The members of the advisory group are representatives of the project tribunals and of tribunal users. The members are listed at Appendix D. The members of the group have not been directly involved in the drafting of this report, however, and nothing in it should be taken as necessarily representing their views, or the views of the organisations they represent.

The unified Tribunals Service

1.5      Following publication of the Leggatt report, the Government issued a further consultation paper on the Leggatt recommendations in August 2001.^[8] A summary of responses received to this consultation was published in March 2003.^[9] On 11 March 2003, the Government announced its plans for reform of tribunals.^[10] It was announced that "the best way to take tribunal reform forward is to bring most non-devolved central government tribunals together into a single service" within the Lord Chancellor's Department (as it then was).^[11] The announcement stated that the new service is initially to be based on the ten largest tribunals,^[12] with smaller tribunals joining as appropriate, and that a White Paper, to be published by the Government later this year, would provide more details.
1.6      It was noted during the consultation process that the fact that the Government will be implementing a unified Tribunals Service could result in delays to other shorter term reforms for tribunals, for example, the updating of tribunal procedures. We hope that the Government will give an indication in its White Paper of the likely timetable for the implementation of changes relating to the unified Tribunals Service.
1.7      Following the Government's announcement, the Lord Chancellor's Department confirmed that our project was to proceed according to its original terms of reference, notwithstanding anything in the announcement. We do not therefore consider that any potential options for reform were closed by the content of the Government's announcement.

Content of the report

1.8      In Part II we set out our recommendations.
1.9      Part III explains the case for reform in the context of the Leggatt report.
1.10      Part IV sets out our proposed reformed structure for the land, valuation and housing tribunals.
1.11      In Part V we examine some day to day operational matters within the proposed reformed structure.
1.12      Part VI considers the question of jurisdictional overlaps between the courts and the land, valuation and housing tribunals.
1.13      Part VII discusses a possible model for the implementation of our proposed structure in legislation.

Abbreviations used in the report

1.14      We summarise here for ease of reference the abbreviations used in this report.

(1) "the project tribunals" refers collectively to the eight tribunals within our terms of reference.

(2) "RPTS tribunals" refers collectively to the three tribunals within the Residential Property Tribunal Service.^[13]

(3) "PVT" refers to our proposed Property and Valuation Tribunal.

(4) We refer to "the reformed Lands Tribunal" where this is necessary to distinguish it from the Lands Tribunal as it currently operates.

Note 1    The Government announced on 12 June 2003 that the post of Lord Chancellor would be abolished and replaced by the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. See press release “Modernising Government – Lord Falconer appointed Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs” dated 12 June 2003, available on www.number-10.gov.uk. Legislation will be needed to formally abolish the role of Lord Chancellor. References in this report will continue to be to the Lord Chancellor.     [Back]

Note 2    Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt: Tribunals for Users – One System, One Service (August 2001).    [Back]

Note 3    Leggatt Report, para 3.30.    [Back]

Note 4    Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service (2001) (footnote in original).    [Back]

Note 5    The terms of reference were “To review the delivery of justice through tribunals other than ordinary courts of law, constituted under an Act of Parliament by a Minister of the Crown or for the purposes of a Minister’s functions; in resolving disputes, whether between citizens and the state, or between other parties, to ensure that: There are fair, timely, proportionate and effective arrangements for handling those disputes, within an effective framework for decision-making which encourages the systematic development of the area of law concerned, and which forms a coherent structure, together with the superior courts, for the delivery of administrative justice; The administrative and practical arrangements for supporting those decision-making procedures meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights for independence and impartiality; There are adequate arrangements for improving people’s knowledge and understanding of their rights and responsibilities in relation to such disputes, and that tribunals and other bodies function in a way which makes those rights and responsibilities a reality; The arrangements for the funding and management of tribunals and other bodies by Government departments are efficient, effective and economical; and pay due regard both to judicial independence, and to ministerial responsibility for the administration of public funds; Performance standards for tribunals are coherent, consistent, and public; and effective measures for monitoring and enforcing those standards are established; and Tribunals overall constitute a coherent structure for the delivery of administrative justice. The review may examine, insofar as it considers it necessary, administrative and regulatory bodies which also make judicial decisions as part of their functions.” (footnote in original).    [Back]

Note 6    The review will not cover these tribunals in so far as they operate in Wales (footnote in original).    [Back]

Note 7    The Law Commission and the Lord Chancellor’s Department agreed that the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry would be included within our terms of reference.    [Back]

Note 8    A consultation paper prior to the publication of the Leggatt report was published on 14 June 2000.    [Back]

Note 9    The summary of consultation responses is available at www.lcd.gov.uk/civil/tribunals.    [Back]

Note 10    Written Answer, Hansard (HL) 11 March 2003, col WA168.    [Back]

Note 11    The Lord Chancellor’s Department became the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 12 June 2003. See press release “Modernising Government – Lord Falconer appointed Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs” dated 12 June 2003, available on www.number-10.gov.uk. References in this report will be to the Lord Chancellor’s Department where the reference is to events that predate the announcement of 12 June 2003, and to the Department for Constitutional Affairs where the reference is to events after this date.    [Back]

Note 12    The ten largest tribunals are the Appeals Service, Immigration Appellate Authority, Employment Tribunals Service, Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, Mental Health Review Tribunal, Office for Social Security and Child Support Commissioners, Tax tribunals, Special Education Needs and Disability Tribunal, Pensions Appeal Tribunal and Lands Tribunal. Of these, only the Lands Tribunal is within the terms of reference for our review.     [Back]

Note 13    See para 3.11.    [Back]