[2023] UKUT 208 (LC)

The FTT’s decision of 20 December 2022 records that at the start of the hearing on 5 December counsel for Mr Saunders applied to revisit the decision of 10 November dismissing the application for further disclosure. The FTT quoted the procedural judge’s observations and dismissed the application saying only that it “did not feel it appropriate or proportionate to distract from the [judge’s] decision”.

The FTT then pointed out that neither party had filed witness statements, and continued:

“The issues therefore fall to be determined based on the comments and explanations made by both parties in the Scott Schedule and the documentary evidence before this tribunal.”

The FTT’s reference to the Scott Schedule was, I take it, intended to limit the scope of the argument which it would consider and to signify that it would not have regard to points unless they had already been identified in the schedule. The FTT did not say why it considered that was appropriate in a case where both parties were represented by experienced counsel.

Thereafter, so far as the matters which are still in dispute in the appeal are concerned, the FTT’s decision was almost entirely formulaic. It recited what each party had said in the schedule about each item before concluding, without further explanation or commentary, with the uninformative mantra: “Having perused the evidence in the trial bundle the tribunal is satisfied that these charges are reasonable and payable.”