Sutton & Ors v Tomkins

Sutton & Ors v Tomkins is a case where the applicants sought to appeal against decisions made by a Tribunal, which had rejected their claims under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 and the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014. The applicants contested the Tribunal's conclusion that a Deposit Bond was not mishandled and that they had not established reliance on misrepresentations which a reasonable person would have relied upon and which were an inducement to contract. The applicants also sought to introduce further evidence on appeal, which the Tribunal had not considered. This case was heard and determined by the court of appeal.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the applicants for leave to appeal could seek to adduce further evidence before leave to appeal was granted, whether the Tribunal erred in not finding that the Deposit Bond was dealt with in a manner which engages liability for the Fund, and whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to provide adequate reasons. The applicants argued that new evidence was reasonably available at the time of the decision, and that the Tribunal had erred in its conclusions.

The court found that the applicants were not entitled to adduce further evidence on appeal. The court held that the new evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the decision and that the applicants had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted the introduction of new evidence. The court also found that the Tribunal had erred in its conclusions regarding the handling of the Deposit Bond and the reliance on misrepresentations. The court held that the Tribunal had failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusions and that the applicants had established reliance on misrepresentations which a reasonable person would have relied upon and which were an inducement to contract.

The court allowed the appeal in relation to the claims insofar as they were based on the alleged misrepresentations of the Respondent, and set aside the Tribunal’s decisions of 7 October 2015 in OCR170-14 and OCR176-14 rejecting the Applicants’ claims. The matters were returned to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law in respect of the claims insofar as they were based on the alleged misrepresentations of the Respondent, and it was directed that the matters be heard by way of an oral hearing. The parties were also directed to file written submissions in respect of the question of costs of the applications and appeal.