[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

In these circumstances I do not need to consider whether the Applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in rule 37(2)(d) of the 2008 Rules. Suffice it to say that, had the point arisen for decision, I would have agreed with Mr Mandagere that the case was not caught by rule 37(2(d). Powers like that conferred by rule 37 have been consistently interpreted as applying only to procedural irregularities and not as including challenges to the substance of the tribunal’s decision or reasons. The position is set out (albeit in the context of rule 43 of the parallel Upper Tribunal Rules) by Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs in SK v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 529 (AAC) at [7]-[14], especially at [7]-[10].