[2023] UKUT 00164 (IAC)

The respondent applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (‘UT’) by relying upon five grounds of appeal. Each ground of appeal was labelled “material misdirection of law / lack of adequate reasoning” and then followed by the topic raised by the ground of appeal as follows: s.72; cessation; Article 3; Exception 1, and; Exception 2. The FTT granted permission to appeal in decision dated 29 December 2022.

In directions dated 3 May 2023, a UT lawyer directed a rule 24 notice from the appellant by 8 May and a skeleton argument and consolidated bundle from the respondent by 15 May. By the 19 May the UT had not received a rule 24 notice from the appellant or a skeleton argument and consolidated bundle from the respondent, and wrote to the parties accordingly. The appellant served a rule 24 notice the next day. The UT chased the respondent again on 22 May, and on the day before the hearing received a skeleton argument and consolidated bundle.

It is regrettable that directions were not complied with, which necessitated additional scarce resources being spent chasing the parties. We again take the opportunity to remind parties that the need for procedural rigour at every stage of the proceedings applies with equal force in the UT. Having said that, we would not wish in any way to be seen to be criticising the representatives before us in this case. The written and oral submissions presented by Ms Ahmed and Mr Pipe were comprehensive and helpful.