Rooster Piri Piri Limited vs The Pensions Regulator

Tribunal strikes out appeal over pension penalties

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) recently struck out an appeal by Rooster Piri Piri Limited against The Pensions Regulator, citing procedural non-compliance. The case, decided by Tribunal Judge Findlay, revolved around penalties imposed on the appellant for failing to adhere to pension regulations.

The appeal was lodged by Rooster Piri Piri Limited on 11 April 2024, challenging a fixed penalty notice dated 8 August 2022 and an escalating penalty notice dated 7 September 2022. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal was procedurally flawed.

According to the Tribunal's decision, an appeal can only proceed if a request for a review of the penalty is made within 28 days of its issuance, and the penalty is either upheld or the review request is declined. The Pensions Regulator argued that Rooster Piri Piri Limited's request for a review was made outside this statutory period.

As a result, the Tribunal determined that no valid review had taken place, and therefore, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This procedural oversight led to the consideration of striking out the appeal under Rule 8(2)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

On 24 September 2024, the Tribunal issued a direction indicating its intention to strike out the appeal unless the appellant responded within 14 days. The appellant was given an opportunity to make representations regarding the proposed striking out but failed to respond.

Given the lack of response, the Tribunal concluded that there were sufficient grounds to strike out the proceedings. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when challenging regulatory decisions.

This case serves as a reminder to businesses of the critical need to act promptly and within designated timeframes when dealing with regulatory bodies, particularly in matters involving financial penalties and compliance obligations.

The Tribunal's decision underscores the procedural rigour required in appealing against regulatory actions, which can have significant financial implications for businesses.