The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) wrongly told a landlord that he could not give evidence by video link from the Czech Republic in a dispute over a financial penalty imposed by Salford City Council.
That finding came from Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Judge Elizabeth Cooke, who set the FTT’s decision aside and ordered a fresh hearing..
Maros Kravec brought the case after Salford imposed five civil penalties on him related to three properties of which he is the registered proprietor.
Mr Kravec lives in the Czech Republic, as does a witness he wished to call, while two other witnesses are resident in Slovakia.
Judge Cooke noted that an official list issued by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office showed that people living in either the Czech Republic or Slovakia are able to voluntarily give evidence by video link without the need for further permission.
Taking video evidence from people in countries not on this list requires permission from their authorities.
Despite this, the FTT told Mr Kravec that it could not allow evidence to be given by video from the Czech Republic.
Judge Cooke said it was not known why the tribunal judge concerned made such a decision especially as no application had been made.
Mr Kravec protested that he could only participate via video link but the FTT was unmoved and told him: “Unfortunately, however, the tribunal has no discretion in this matter”, though said he could watch proceedings by video but not take part.
It did though suggest Mr Kravec and his witnesses could go to Poland, a country it deemed acceptable for video evidence.
The FTT heard the appeals in February 2025, found that the relevant offences had been committed and increased the financial penalties imposed.
Mr Kravec appealed on multiple grounds and Judge Cooke said his complaint about video evidence must succeed.
She said: “The FTT in August took it upon itself to tell the appellant he could not give evidence from the Czech Republic. It gave no reasons for that decision.”
The FTT told Mr Kravec he should have read the FTT’s guidance so that he would have been able to correct its error.
“To criticise the appellant for not putting the FTT right is to penalise him for complying with the FTT’s direction,” Judge Cooke said.
“Counsel representing the appellant at the hearing before the FTT also missed the point, but to pass the responsibility for the FTT’s mistake to the appellant by expecting him to correct it is unfair, particularly in light of the dramatic consequences of that mistake.”
Judge Cooke said it was inevitable that Mr Kravec did not get a fair hearing and sent the various grounds of appeal over the actual offence back to the FTT.
Mark Smulian