This hearing
This hearing
It unfortunately took some time for a date to be identified for this hearing where a hearing venue was available in Manchester for an in-person hearing on a date that was convenient to the parties and Tribunal. This accounts for the further delay between the grant of permission and this final hearing.
At this hearing, we received the aforementioned witness statements from the appellant, who gave oral evidence on oath and was questioned by counsel for DBS and the Tribunal.
The appellant did not file any additional witness statements or seek witness orders for any other witnesses.
Despite the invitation extended to DBS in the grant of permission to file evidence for this hearing, DBS elected to rely on the documents in the bundle and submissions.
DBS filed a skeleton argument and made oral submissions. The appellant made submissions orally.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The matter is remitted to DBS for a new decision. The appellant must remain on the list until DBS makes its new decision
- Introduction
- The proceedings before the Upper Tribunal
- The grant of permission and the parties’ responses/replies to that
- This hearing
- Factual background
- Legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- Whether a mistake on a point of law must be a material error of law
- What is a material procedural error
- The grounds of appeal
- Our analysis and conclusions
- Grounds 2 and 3: Failure to grant an extension of time for making representations, or to permit late representations
- Our analysis and conclusions
- Ground 5: Proportionality
- Ground 7: Inclusion on the children’s barred list
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 86 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)