[2025] UKUT 00276 (IAC)

In Quintavalle, Lord Bingham stated at §8:

“The court’s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.”

The whole legislative objective of creating a tribunal appellate structure in TCEA 2007 was to provide a tribunal-centred route to appeal first instance tribunal errors of law, save for excluded decisions. That much is clear from section 11 of the Act. This animating objective driving the creation of the modern tribunal system was touched on by the Upper Tribunal in VOM at §17, where the Upper Tribunal noted that the statutory appellate structure was clearly intended to provide an alternative to judicial review.

In this case, there is nothing to indicate that an appeal on an error of law to the Upper Tribunal would not provide an adequate remedy. No such argument was placed before us. We find that appeal to the Upper Tribunal on such an error of law is plainly and obviously an adequate remedy.

We now reach the timing question, which must be viewed in the context of there being an adequate alternative remedy available.