![[2024] UKUT 430 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
By virtue of Rule 5(3)(a) the Upper Tribunal has a discretion to extend time. The appellant has applied to extend time, but justifying such an extension is not a triviality re Salmon (deceased) [1981]
By virtue of Rule 5(3)(a) the Upper Tribunal has a discretion to extend time. The appellant has applied to extend time, but justifying such an extension is not a triviality re Salmon (deceased) [1981]Ch 167. The first respondent supports an extension, referring to Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed (no 1) [1991] 1 WLR 449 in which McCowan LJ suggested the discretion should be informed by consideration of the length of the delay, the reasons for it, the underlying strength of the appeal, and prejudice to the respondents.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) made on 2 August 2023 under number SC914/22/00006 was made in error of l
- Preliminary issues; Delay
- By virtue of Rule 5(3)(a) the Upper Tribunal has a discretion to extend time. The appellant has applied to extend time, but justifying such an extension is not a triviality re Salmon (deceased) [1981]
- The second respondent opposes an extension, referring to the Denton like approach taken in Martland v Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC) , the approach also taken in BB v Disclosure and Bar
- I will apply the approach in Martland and BB rather than Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, although I would not expect the two approaches typically to yield a different result
- Preliminary issues: hearing or no hearing
- The decision under appeal
- The Appeal
- Conclusions