Case No. UKUT-00330-(IAC)

9. The lessons to be learned are the following: (i) Experience has frequently shown that “reserving to self” orders/directions of Upper Tribunal Judges simply do not work efficiently in practice. These are not readily accommodated by this Chamber’s work allocation systems and practices. (ii) A part-heard appeal is to be distinguished from one in which a hearing has not taken place at all. That is not to say that there may not be good reason for a “reserve to oneself” order/direction in either case. However, there is a very broad spectrum of part (or incomplete) hearings, many of which do not require a “reserve to self” direction. Where a Judge considers that this course is appropriate, it must always be followed by proactive and assiduous post-direction monitoring. (iii) “First available date” relisting directions are understandable. However, in practice, they rarely deliver efficiency or expedition. Best practice dictates that a concrete rearranged hearing date be specified in directions of this kind. (iv) Strict and rigorous case management timetables are required in every case. (v) A claim by a representative at a resumed hearing, many months later, that previous directions have not been seen might be true: however, it must be vigorously probed, particularly in circumstances where the earlier directions were pronounced orally in the presence of both parties’ representatives. (vi) It is entirely unacceptable for a Tribunal to be informed on a hearing date that there are/have been relevant proceedings in some other judicial forum having a possible impact upon the Tribunal proceedings. A failure to proactively and timeously bring this to the attention of the Tribunal will require a compelling explanation. (vii) Tribunals do not conduct rolling appeals. An adjournment of specified and brief proportions may be unavoidable from time to time. However, the guillotine will fall at an appropriate stage as soon as it appears that the overarching values of expedition and finality are being unacceptably threatened, the more so where there are indications of misuse (or abuse) of process. (viii) The duty of co-operation with the Tribunal imposed upon representatives by the overriding objective cannot be over - emphasised.