djournment
2. Mr Lemer renewed an application to adjourn the hearing which we refused for the reasons given in a short oral decision. In particular, we were not satisfied that the appellant had provided any adequate explanation for his being in funds for the purposes of the hearing today but not in funds a few days ago when the application was made. Further, there has been ample opportunity for the appellant to secure evidence from a social worker as to the effect on the children and the overriding objective is not suited to delay the hearing on the purely speculative basis on what such a report might contain. Neither the respondent nor the Tribunal disputes the fact that the appellant has a genuine relationship with his children and family members or they with him.
The