![[2024] UKUT 398 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
First question: was Miss Kufandirori fairly made aware of the contents of Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to the public inquiry?
First question: was Miss Kufandirori fairly made aware of the contents ofMr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to the public inquiry?
We find the answer to this factual question to be “no”, given that Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC were not in the bundle prepared by OTC for the public inquiry; and we see nothing else in the bundle prepared by OTC for this hearing, including in the transcript of the public inquiry, to suggest that they were sent to Miss Kufandirori. Moreover, we see nothing in the call-up letter, or other communication to Miss Kufandirori by OTC prior to the public inquiry, which disclosed the substantive content of Mr Saleh’s letters.
- Heading
- The appeal is allowed
- The TC’s written decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal proceedings in this case
- The appellants’ grounds of appeal
- The procedural fairness issue
- Summary of Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to the public inquiry
- Summary of the call up letter to Excell Logistics Ltd
- Public inquiry transcript
- Our analysis of the procedural unfairness argument
- First question: was Miss Kufandirori fairly made aware of the contents of Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to the public inquiry?
- Second question: fairness of Miss Kufandirori not being made aware of the content of Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to public inquiry
- Third question: did the unfairness make a material difference?
- Conclusion on procedural unfairness
- Conclusions