Rowlands v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal

The plaintiff, Rowlands, applied for an order nisi in the nature of a prerogative writ to quash a decision of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. The tribunal had terminated a tenancy agreement between Rowlands and the defendant, a property manager, without Rowlands being present. Rowlands argued that the tribunal's failure to grant procedural fairness resulted in a jurisdictional error. The court had to decide whether the tribunal's privative clause precluded judicial review and whether Rowlands' application for an order nisi should be granted.

The court examined the privative clause in the relevant legislation, which aimed to exclude judicial review of tribunal decisions unless exceptions applied. The court considered whether Rowlands' case fell within the exceptions, particularly the denial of procedural fairness. The court held that the tribunal's decision to terminate the tenancy in Rowlands' absence without notice constituted a denial of procedural fairness. This denial of procedural fairness was a jurisdictional error, and the privative clause did not preclude judicial review in this instance.

The court granted Rowlands' application for an order nisi, quashing the tribunal's decision to terminate the tenancy agreement. The court found that the tribunal's failure to provide Rowlands with notice and an opportunity to be heard constituted a jurisdictional error, and the privative clause did not prevent judicial review in this case. The court also dismissed the tribunal's application for an order to stay Rowlands' proceedings and for costs. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making and the need to protect individuals' rights in tribunal proceedings.