[2024] UKUT 430 (AAC)

By virtue of Rule 34 the Upper Tribunal may decide a matter without a hearing, but must have regard to the views of the parties before taking such a decision. It must also seek to apply the overriding objective

Neither the appellant nor the first respondent seek an oral hearing. The second respondent does seek an oral hearing as “it provides the opportunity to check the evidence”. It seems to me the second respondent may be under the impression tat the appeal would remake the decision. That would not be an appropriate outcome for the appeal because if the FtT decision is set aside there would need to be factual findings made as to the day to day care provided by each parent. In fact the issue before the Upper Tribunal is a legal one not requiring the testing of evidence. Considering the overriding objective an oral hearing would add delay and potentially cost without adding anything to the determination of the case.

I am satisfied it is appropriate and in the interests of justice to proceed without a hearing.