The Upper Tribunal proceedings in this case
The Upper Tribunal proceedings in this case
We had before us a bundle of 772 pages (not including the (revised) grounds of appeal, which were expressed in a further 7 pages). About 400 of the 772 pages were the bundle prepared by OTC for the Upper Tribunal hearing: this included, amongst many other things, the call-up letters to the public inquiry, correspondence between the call-up letter and the public inquiry (“section B”) and a transcript of the public inquiry. The bundle before us also included a further 300 pages of documents submitted by the appellants, including 68 pages of “written submissions” dated 19 September 2024 and, on 26 September 2024, 200 or so pages of submissions and evidence. This included over 100 pages of “screenshot evidence” of messages between Miss Kufandirori and Mr Saleh between November 2022 and January 2024.
We are grateful to Mr Benn for his submissions and his assistance at the hearing in navigating the voluminous bundle.
- 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
![[2024] UKUT 398 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)