Case No. UKUT-00233-(IAC)

108. GS made submissions in response to the Tribunal’s provisional view that the error of law appeal could be determined without a hearing. GS’s preference was for a remote hearing, either by phone or video (see submissions dated 15 April 2020 at paragraph 3). GS’s submissions pointed out that a determination based only on written submissions would remove the possibility of interaction between the advocates and the Tribunal; it would not provide as good a way of deciding the error of law appeal. 109. These matters were directly addressed by the Tribunal at paragraphs 10 – 11 of its decision. The Tribunal was satisfied that the issues in the appeal could be fairly determined on the basis of written submissions; see in particular at paragraph 11. It is also clear from paragraph 10 of the decision that the Tribunal took account of both the requirements of fairness at common law and the principles that underlay the overriding objective. 110. The submissions made to us focused on generic issues (the advantages of hearings generally) and pointed to certain matters in the Tribunal’s decision which it is said were examples of factual inaccuracy. We do not agree that these matters warrant setting aside the Tribunal’s error of law decision. We have already addressed the generic issues. The matters said to be factually inaccurate are not material and, as we have explained already, simply being able to point to respects in which the Tribunal was in error will not, in the overwhelming majority of instances, make good the submission that the no-hearing determination was unfair. This rule 43 application is therefore refused. (9)