[2024] UKUT 398 (AAC)

Given our conclusion above, the TC’s decision was marred by a material legal error and so it is right that we set the decision aside. As Lord Reed is memorably recorded as having observed in the hearing of Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23 (at [49]), “a judgment which results from an unfair trial is written in water.”

It follows that it is unnecessary for us to consider, and decide on, the other legal errors in the TC’s decision alleged by the appellants; it suffices to say that the reason we considered one aspect of the appellants’ procedural unfairness argument first, is that it seemed to us the strongest of the appellants’ grounds, by some way.

Having set the TC’s decision on revocation and disqualification aside, we are in no position to remake it: we had a half day hearing in which the focus was on whether the TC’s decision was plainly wrong; to remake these decisions fairly and justly will involve hearing the oral evidence directly and making factual findings, based on all the evidence, necessary to resolve the matters at hand. A public hearing before a new TC (to avoid any question of appearance of bias) seems to us the right forum to do this, in all the circumstances. We have therefore exercised our power to remit the matter to a new TC for rehearing and determination.

For the avoidance of doubt,