Case No. UKUT-00450(IAC)

(73) We determine these two interlocutory matters in the following way. First there is an application on behalf of the Respondent to adduce further evidence. The further evidence takes the form of a second witness statement of one of the Respondent’s deponents, namely Mr James Turner. It is represented to the Tribunal by Mr Kovats QC that this further evidence is designed to establish as a fact that Mr Mohibullah has attended a number of educational establishments during previous years which have been the subject of inter alia licence revocation. We refuse this application for the following reasons.(74) First of all, if this evidence had been relevant it would have had to form part of the Secretary of State’s response ideally initially and, at the latest, during the subsequent phase of the proceedings in the discharge of the Secretary of State’s duty of candour. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence before us that this new evidence was taken into account by the decision-maker. Thirdly, this new evidence has not been put to the applicant Mr Mohibullah. One could of course devise a mechanism for dealing with that problem. The difficulty with that is that the disruption and delay which that would inevitably generate would be disproportionate. For that combination of reasons we refuse the application.(75) Second, we rule on the Respondent’s objection to the witness statement of Miss Patel, the Applicant’s legal representative. Miss Patel’s witness statement is dated 26 July 2016. She is a paralegal in the firm of solicitors representing the applicant Mr Mohibullah. Her witness statement contains certain averments relating to the layout of a room in premises which are of relevance to these proceedings. Objection is taken on the grounds that this purports to be expert evidence and has not been adduced in accordance with the requirements of evidence of this species.(76) Having reflected on this we acknowledge that the issue to which the witness statement is addressed is a relevant issue in the proceedings, though its full importance cannot be measured at present. Next, we note that the author of the witness statement does not have the expertise of an architect or engineer or someone of that ilk. However, evidence of this rather limited kind in our judgment does not necessarily require expertise of that order and the main question from our perspective will be the weight to be attached to it. We take into account further that there is no prejudice to the Respondent and no suggestion of inappropriate timing or being taken by surprise.(77) We shall admit this evidence and in due course shall form a view on the weight if any to be attached to it.