[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)

The Appellant and Mr AA applied jointly for the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to grant permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision on certain grounds to be set aside. The application for set side was made under rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The application for set aside paid no heed to the test for set aside under rule 43. The provisions of rule 43 had been supplied to the Appellants with the Upper Tribunal’s permission determination. For the most part, the application for set aside simply recounted, or reformulated, arguments that had been dealt with in the Upper Tribunal’s determination granting permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. The application for set aside also advanced arguments by reference to D’s changed circumstances following the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.

Having granted an extension of time for making the set aside application, the application was refused. The set aside application was refused in April 2023 but, due to an administrative oversight, was not issued until September 2023.

The Upper Tribunal’s permission determination directed the local authority to provide a written response to the appeal within one month of the date on which determination was issued. The local authority complied with that requirement and its written response was received by the Upper Tribunal on 6 April 2023. The authority’s response was issued to the Appellants on 12 April 2023. Case management directions required the Appellants’ written reply to the authority’s response to be received within one month of the date on which they were issued. No response having been received by August 2023, the Upper Tribunal gave directions requiring the written response to be received by a specified date in September 2023. Unfortunately, due to another administrative oversight, those directions were not issued until after the date for compliance had passed. Fresh directions requiring the Appellants were issued in November 2023 requiring the written response to be received within one month of the date of issue. These directions were complied with.

In July 2023, the Upper Tribunal received notice that Sinclairslaw, solicitors, were acting for D’s mother (but not his father). As I have mentioned, D’s father was subsequently removed as a party to this appeal.