Paul Threadwell v The Pensions Regulator
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Posture
- Appeal / Striking Out of Appeal at Preliminary Stage
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to comply with a tribunal direction requiring resubmission of a complete notice of appeal, despite being warned that non-compliance could result in striking out.
Court disposition
Appeal struck out
Orders
- The appeal is struck out.
02
Material facts
Parties
Paul Threadwell
AppellantThe Pensions Regulator
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal / Striking Out of Appeal at Preliminary Stage
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant complied with tribunal directions
- 02
Whether failure to comply with directions warrants striking out the appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No argument advanced; appellant did not respond or comply with directions.
- Respondent
- No argument recorded; matter determined on procedural non-compliance.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 8(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
The tribunal may strike out proceedings if the appellant fails to comply with a direction that warned of striking out as a consequence.
- 02
Rule 22(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Appellant must provide with the notice of appeal a copy of any written record of the challenged decision and any statement of reasons for that decision.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to comply with a tribunal direction requiring resubmission of a complete notice of appeal, despite being warned that non-compliance could result in striking out.
Court disposition
Appeal struck out
- The appeal is struck out.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00142 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Pensions Regulation Case Reference: FT/PEN/2025/0273 Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 29 January 2026 Before
JUDGE SHENAZ MUZAFFER Between
PAUL THREADWELL and
THE PENSIONS REGULATOR Appellant Respondent Decision: The appeal is struck out.
REASONS 1. The Appellant lodged his appeal with the Tribunal by email dated 09 December 2025.
2. Rule 8(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 provides that the Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if 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.
3. On 10 December 2026 an email was sent to the Appellant by the Tribunal. The email stated that the appeal had been received but that it did not meet the requirement of rule 22(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 that “If the proceedings challenge a decision, the appellant must provide with the notice of appeal a copy of any written record of that decision, and any statement of reasons for that decision that the appellant has or can reasonably obtain”. Case Management Directions were also attached to the email. The Case Management Directions stated that the Appellant must resubmit a Notice of Appeal that included all of the required documentation and information within 28 days of the date that the directions were sent.
4. The resubmitted Notice of Appeal should therefore have been provided by 07 January 2026.
5. The Case Management Directions also stated the following: “Important: This document is: 1. …..
2. A formal notice under rule 8(3)(a) of the 2009 Rules that a failure to comply with these directions could lead to the striking out of proceedings. 3. …..” 6. The Appellant has not responded to the above direction and has not complied with it.
7. I am satisfied that the Appellant has not complied with the direction and has made no attempt to do so. The Appellant was notified that a failure to comply with the direction could lead to the appeal being struck out. In all of the circumstances, and taking into account the interests of justice and the overriding objective, it is appropriate to strike out the appeal and I therefore do so. Signed: Judge Shenaz Muzaffer Dated: 26 January 2026
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.