Avonside PHT Tewkesbury Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

1. The Appellant lodged their appeal using the GRC1 form on 30 October 2024. That appeal was late, they provided reasons for the delay in that form. The application to extend time in light of the delay has not yet been considered in these proceedings.

2. By directions and an email issued on 20 November 2024, the Appellant was required to provide the “Pensions – right to appeal” form to the Tribunal within 28 days. The Tribunal explained that: “We acknowledge receipt of your appeal, but regret to inform you that it either fails to meet the requirements of the Tribunal’s Procedure Rules or that further information is required before it can be progressed: Pensions appeals – It is not clear from the provided documents that you have a right of appeal to the Tribunal”

3. The Appellant did not comply with those directions.

4. On 24 th January 2024, the Appellant was directed to provide a copy of the “Pensions – right to appeal” form again, by no later than 7 th 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. On 6 th February 2025, the Appellant emailed the Tribunal and asked if the deadline could be extended as his accountant was trying to collate all the evidence requested.

6. On 3 rd March the Tribunal advised the Appellant (by email) that if he wished to make an extension of time request, he needed to use the GRC5 form.

7. The Appellant applied for an extension of time, using form GRC5 on 27 th March 2025. In that form he explained that “ The accountants have informed the company that they need longer”. They did not specify how much longer they needed.

8. On 3 rd April 2025, the Tribunal emailed the Appellant (on the same email address which the Appellant had used to apply for an extension of time) that and asked him to confirm the length of time required.

9. The Appellant did not reply.

10. On 19 th May 2025, the Tribunal again emailed the Appellant and asked him to confirm the length of time required.

11. Again the Appellant did not reply.

12. The Appellant has now been given numerous opportunities to abide with the Tribunal directions. He has repeatedly failed to do so. It is unclear to me, why the Appellant has not served the documents required – he first raised the possibility of an extension of time on 6 th February – that was over 5 months ago. The Appellant has repeatedly failed to respond to requests from the Tribunal to clarify how long an extension he required. The application to extend time is therefore refused.

13. The Appellant has not provided the “Pensions – right to appeal” form despite repeated requests. Again, no explanation has been provided for the failure to do so – the fact that his accountants needed more time had no impact on his ability to return the ‘Pensions – right to appeal’ form. Or if it did, at no point has the Appellant explained how.

14. The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 state: (3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if— (a) 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; (b) the appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.

15. I find that the test under Rule 8(3)(a) is met: the Appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure to comply could lead to the striking out of the proceedings (he was explicitly told that the failure to comply with the directions could lead to his appeal being struck out on 24 th January 2025). The Appeal is struck out for this reason.

16. I further conclude that the test under Rule 8(3)(b) is met: the Appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal (by failing to provide a copy of the “Pensions – right to appeal” form and by failing to reply to repeated emails from the Tribunal) to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly or justly. The Appeal is also struck out for this reason.

17. The overriding objective in Rule 2 of the Procedure Rules requires the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. For completeness, I add that I find it is fair and just to strike out the proceedings. The Appellant has now had almost 9 months to abide by the very simply direction (ie to serve the “Pensions – right to appeal” form). They have failed to do so. They have not provided any explanation for the failure. Signed Date: Gilda Kiai 8 th July 2025