Case No. UKUT-00222-(IAC)

argument”) taken in the respondent’s Summary Grounds of Defence, which were settled by Mr Malik of counsel. Since those submissions did not amount to a ground of challenge, and given their prominence in the submissions made before me orally and in writing, I propose to return to them in due course. 25. Judge Pickup rehearsed the competing arguments in some detail before concluding materially as follows: In summary, for the reasons set out above, it is arguable that insofar as the Fee Waiver Policy may exclude those who cannot afford to pay the fees but who do not qualify under the policy’s definition of destitute/destitution, it is unreasonable, irrational or unlawful. If the policy is to be applied inflexibly, it is also arguably an unlawful fetter on discretion to waive fees. It is arguable that even though the policy has been amended to take account of Omar and Carter, the focus on either destitution or, in the alternative, exceptional circumstances still fails to be compatible with the Convention.