[2024] UKUT 257 (AAC)

The grounds said, among other things—

“13.

The [First-tier Tribunal] Judge had earlier queried the lack of records from the 2020 claim, as opposed to the perhaps more understandable lack of records from the 2005 claim. Mrs Futers told the FTT that 2020 documentation was “possibly still available” and that the “appeal writer and decision maker haven’t provided that”.”

I find that the First-tier Tribunal erred in failing to explore whether evidence was in fact still available as to the declarations made for the 2020 claim. Whether that meant adjourning the whole hearing or just the question as to claim 5, that possibility should in my judgment have been explored.

In refusing permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the First-tier Tribunal pointed out that there had been no application to adjourn. Where the failure to seek an adjournment was a failure by an experienced representative, an argument might be made that the appellant is fixed with that failure. The representative here however was via the Free Representation Unit, and his level of experience may not have been high. But in any event, the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction is inquisitorial. There was the possibility of not having to piece together claim 5 in the way that claims 1 to 4 had been pieced together. The First-tier Tribunal should in my judgment have followed up that possibility and erred in law in failing to do so.