Case No. UKUT-00338-(IAC)

CG [2022] UKUT 23 (IAC). (4)The applicant and the respondent have leave to file and serve any additional evidence relied upon following a review of, and disclosure of material relating to the applicant’s social media accounts by 4pm on 29th July 2022.15.On 11 July 2022, the applicant applied for paragraphs (2)-(4) of UTJ Mandalia’s order to be set aside. Detailed grounds in support of that application, settled by Mr Greene of counsel, were appended but it suffices for present purposes to reproduce what was said at section 3.1 of the application notice:The Applicant seeks: a.paragraph 2 be set aside as it is unlawful; b.paragraph 3 also be set aside, as the Applicant will comply with his duty of candour and it is unnecessary for the fair resolution of the proceedings to require him to do a search of his social media and download significant amounts of data; and, c.paragraph 4 be set aside as the consequence of paragraph 2 and 3 being set aside.16.The set aside application was said to be made with the consent of the respondent. The respondent’s email of 4 July 2022 in fact recorded its agreement to the ‘application to stay paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the order until it is determined by the court’. The application to set aside those three paragraphs was accordingly listed to be heard before us on 18 August 2022.17.Prior to the hearing, the Upper Tribunal received a consolidated bundle which contained skeleton arguments and authorities in addition to statements from the applicant and a solicitor named Edward Taylor of Osbornes Solicitors LLP. The applicant also filed an expert report from Dr Michael Veale, Associate Professor in Digital Rights and Regulation at University College London.18.On 17 August 2022, the parties were provided with copies of the decisions of the Upper Tribunal in