Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 259 (AAC)

Fecha: 01-Ene-2024

Ground 5

12.

LM raises a number of matters under this ground none of which amount to procedural unfairness or other error of law. I deal with them briefly:

The appeal had previously been heard by a different judge who adjourned it part-heard with directions.

It was not unfair for the following hearing to be conducted by a different judge. As noted in the statement of reasons, the original judge was unable to hear the appeal. At the hearing the judge discussed this change with the parties and they were content to proceed. The judge considered all matters afresh.

The previous judge had adjourned for further submissions and explanation from the CMS, nothing had changed and so it was not fair for the second judge to proceed without those directions having been complied with.

I have addressed this under Ground 1.

The FtT noted that the Presenting Officer was unable to explain the CMS’ reasoning.

The FtT reasonably took the view that the reasoning was set out sufficiently in the supplementary submission. The FtT was critical of the CMS’ previous explanations but rightly decided to apply the law to the facts as found, which it did.

LM states that the appeal was to have been heard by a judge and financially qualified member.

This was a misapprehension. There was no such direction and there was no unfairness in the appeal being heard by a judge alone.

The FtT failed to take into account section 28F(1)(b) of the Act (whether it was just and equitable to make the variation).

It is clear from the statement of reasons that the FtT did address this.