London Borough of Wandsworth v DMS (JR): [2026] UKUT 426 (AAC)
Summary
The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in treating a local authority as automatically barred for not providing a paper copy of a bundle where the relevant direction had been superseded and no specific request for paper copies had been made. It also found that refusing reinstatement was perverse, emphasising that barring and strike-out are last-resort case management measures and must be assessed against fairness and prejudice.
Why it matters
The decision is relevant to tribunal procedure in education and social care cases, particularly how case management directions on bundles and sanctions for non-compliance should be framed and applied. For surveyors involved in expert evidence or tribunal processes, it underlines the importance of following current procedural directions and avoiding assumptions about automatic sanctions.
Key points
- Upper Tribunal said judicial review was not the correct route; appeal under section 11 TCEA 2007 was available.
- Automatic barring wording in case management directions was described as misleading and should be avoided.
- The paper bundle direction had been superseded; a paper copy was only required if specifically and reasonably requested.
- The First-tier Tribunal wrongly treated the local authority as non-compliant and wrongly refused reinstatement.
- Barring and strike-out should be used only as a last resort, with fairness and prejudice considered.
This is an RPSA summary of a publicly available article. The full content remains with the original publisher.
