[2025] UKUT 061 (AAC)

The claimant’s grounds of appeal were lengthy, and not entirely clear. In my decision on the permission application (which was addressed to the claimant) I summarised them as follows:

“5.

You set out your grounds of appeal in very colourful terms in 26 pages of closely typed email text. You apologise for their lack of brevity, explaining that this was a "more than averagely complex case". You say that these grounds are already the product of editing and that further shortening would be liable to obscure important points. I am going to attempt to boil your grounds down to their bare bones.

6.

Taking a step back, I read your document as identifying three principal grounds of appeal:

a.

the judge misunderstood or misapplied the proper legal test in respect of the core legal issue in the appeal, namely whether you satisfied the conditions to entitlement to working tax credit set out in section 10(1) of the Tax Credits Act 2002 (the "2002 Act") and regulation 4 of the Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002 (the"2002 Regulations") ("Ground 1")

b.

the judge demonstrated in his conduct of the hearing and in what he said in his written statement of reasons that he was biased against you and in favour of HMRC ("Ground 2"); and

c.

the judge managed proceedings in a way which was unfair, including by refusing your request for a "continuation hearing" and not taking into account (or explaining what it made of) your post-hearing submissions ("Ground 3").”

I considered that it was arguable with a realistic (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of success that the First-tier Tribunal had misunderstood or misapplied the proper test for entitlement to working tax credits.

I granted permission and directed the parties to make submissions, which they duly did.

HMRC resisted both appeals, arguing that the First-tier Tribunal had made no material error of law. It invited me to confirm the decision on both appeals.

The claimant continued to pursue his appeal with some vigour and sent further evidence in support of his appeal.