[2023] UKUT 170 (AAC)

The Appellant, in reply, states that he “felt pressured to consent in order to prevent further delay”. In particular, he “felt duty bound to agree to this procedural irregularity” given the FTT’s specific reminder to the parties to have regard to the overriding objective and their obligation to co-operate with the Tribunal (see paragraph 10 above). The Appellant adds that during the hearings he had felt that the FTT judge “unduly favoured” the Council but it was not until he received the final decision “that this became fully evident”. As such, he argues that “the absence of Mr Palmer-Dunk did have the effect of ‘Committing or permitting a procedural or other irregularity capable of making a material difference to the outcome of the fairness of the proceedings’, as he should of [sic] brought some equality to the proceedings.” Finally, the Appellant contends that the combination of the consequence of the panel member’s absence being not clearly explained to him and the pressure on him to agree to the unusual procedural arrangement meant that his consent was not voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

That said, for the most part the Appellant’s reply is devoted to re-arguing the other grounds of appeal on which permission to appeal has been refused and which have been certified as totally without merit. Those submissions are accordingly irrelevant and have not been further considered.

I consider first the rules governing the composition of the FTT and then the natural justice arguments raised by R (on the application of Hill).