[2025] UKUT 132 (AAC)

The Secretary of State’s representative did not request an oral hearing. LB had requested an oral hearing, as described at paragraph 23 above. However, I consider that the point LB was making is about how his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal should be resolved. Having taken account of LB’s preference, I considered the appeal file. I decided the interests of justice did not require an oral hearing because there was a substantial level of agreement between the parties about errors of law by the FTT. I therefore determined the appeal on the papers. It was proportionate to do so.

There has been a delay in being able to decide this appeal, linked to the question of whether to stay it pending the outcome of the appeals mentioned at paragraph 12 above. I apologise to the parties for that delay and its impact on being able to decide LB’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal.