[2025] UKUT 337 (AAC)

The LA has requested an oral hearing of its application, in short so it can “provide clarification to disputed facts and provide oral testimony”. I interpose that it is not the function of the Upper Tribunal to receive evidence as to the facts on an application for permission to appeal on a point of law.

I have had regard to the LA’s request (as required by rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (“the UT Rules”)). The decision to grant an oral hearing is a matter of judicial discretion. The test I must apply in deciding whether to hold an oral hearing is whether “fairness requires such a hearing in the light of the facts of the case and the importance of what is at stake”: see R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115 at paragraph 2(i). I have also considered whether an oral hearing would be likely to assist me to understand the proposed grounds of appeal better. I do not think that it would. The core issues in this application are essentially straightforward, for the reasons above and for further reasons that will become apparent.

I consider that the overriding objective of the Upper Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly (see rule 2 of the UT Rules, which includes “dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties” as well as “avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues”), would best be furthered by my deciding this application on the papers. This is to avoid both delay and an inappropriate use of scarce judicial and administrative resources. Accordingly, I refuse the application for an oral hearing of the application for permission to appeal.