[2024] UKUT 89 (AAC)

The Council’s written submissions are drafted on the incorrect assumption that the Appellants have yet to be granted permission to appeal. This may explain why the Council’s submissions are rather brief, but it should have been obvious to the Council that they were presenting arguments on an appeal rather than an application for permission to appeal. The Council’s submissions were made in response to an Upper Tribunal determination that began with the words, “Decision – Permission to Appeal is Granted”.

In relation to ground 1, the Council recite certain provisions of the 2008 Rules followed by the submission that:

“the LA agrees with [the Tribunal’s] Decision that the final decision of the FTT is the decision issued following the final hearing and making of the decision (i.e. the Decision of 23 December 2021). The clock started at that point for the purposes of Rule 30(2). The appeal process, whilst connected to the original decision, marks the commencement of new proceedings”.

In relation to ground 2, the Council align themselves with the view expressed by the First-tier Tribunal judge who refused permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the refusal to admit the costs application, namely “Judge McCarthy’s discretionary decision to not extend time was reached very carefully, properly and without consideration of irrelevant matters”. The Council go on to explain why they believe that their conduct during the appeal proceedings fell far short of unreasonable conduct.