Case No. UKUT-00410-(IAC)

13. The cornerstone of the submissions of Mr Khubber on behalf of the Appellant was that the words “a decision made by the Upper Tribunal” in Section 13(1) of the 2007 Act embrace – within the compass of Section 12(1) and (2) – a finding that the decision of the FtT involved the making of an error on a point of law and/or a consequential decision of the UT setting aside the decision of the FtT. Mr Khubber submitted that the statutory language is sufficiently broad and unqualified to warrant this construction. He further submitted that this is supported by the restrictive nature of the second appeal test. He argued that the determination of the UT under scrutiny in this case is not an “excluded decision” within the meaning of Article 3(m) of the 2009 Order. Finally, he submitted that to reject the construction espoused by him would violate an appellant’s right of access to a court.14. The main thrust of the argument development by Ms Anderson on behalf of the Secretary of State was that the construction of Sections 12 and 13 of the 2007 Act advocated by the Appellant would produce an unsatisfactory and unworkable result which Parliament cannot have intended. She submitted that the statutory regime contemplates a single, indivisible appeal (our formula) from the UT to the Court of Appeal only at the stage when the UT appeal process is finally completed. This, it was submitted, would give effect to the presumed parliamentary intention of a sensible, coherent and workable appeal model. Ms Anderson’s alternative submission was that the appeal which the Appellant purports to pursue is precluded by Article 3(m) of the 2009 Order in any event.