[2025] UKUT 355 (AAC)

An oral hearing took place at Field House, London on 3 July 2025. The claimant attended and was represented by Mr Tom Webb of counsel. The Respondent did not attend and was not represented, but served a skeleton argument resisting the application.

I am grateful to Mr Webb not only for his clear and helpful submissions but also for accepting the instruction to act on this application pro bono.

As was prefigured in his skeleton argument, the case that Mr Webb presented in favour of setting aside the Permission Disposal Decision at the hearing differed significantly from that which he had outlined in the application of 14 February 2025. He abandoned reliance on rule 43(2)(c), and based his case instead on the powers invested in the Upper Tribunal by section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“TCEA 2007”).

The Respondent resisted the application solely on the basis that the circumstances of this case did not fall within rule 43 of the UT Rules, and did not address Mr Webb’s arguments relating to section 25 TCEA 2007.