[2024] UKUT 00436 (TCC)

The Applicant also argued that he was cut off from giving much further oral evidence at the end of the hearing when he was speaking and there were a number of further factual points he wanted to make. He included this in the section: ‘The facts I rely on’ in his speaking note. I asked him to clarify from this what was the evidence was he wanted to give that he was unable to give to the FTT and why it was material. He said there was a specific written statement he had prepared that he had not been allowed to read out. I asked him to provide this to me after the hearing and he subsequently did so (that document consists of some factual submissions and some questions).

I asked him to identify the evidence he wanted to give but was cut off from doing so. At the hearing before me he said that he was unable to but wanted to give evidence to the FTT about the burglary and insurance at Heathfield Crescent but he was cut off from doing so. He addressed this in the speaking note as follows:

Even assuming that this was evidence the Applicant wanted to give to the FTT, he has not explained why he did not give it during the part of the hearing that considered his statement and his oral evidence, even if he was not able to give it during closing submissions. He has not explained why he did not provide this as written evidence or a statement in advance of the hearing if he wanted to rely upon it.

The Applicant has not identified any specific evidence or argument that he was unable to make during the course of the hearing and why it would have been material to the outcome. Even if he was interrupted by the FTT on any one occasion, this would not give rise to an arguable error of law in itself. It is readily apparent from the Decision that the Applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case by giving evidence orally and in writing and making submissions throughout the hearing.

The FTT provided a detailed Decision setting out extensive oral submissions made and evidence given by the Applicant during the hearing together with the reasons why it was found to be unreliable. The FTT also provided an audio recording of the hearing at the Applicant’s request.

The Applicant was invited by me in my decision refusing permission to appeal on the papers, to supply the recording and a transcript or reference to the relevant timings he relies upon as part of any application for reconsideration of permission to appeal at a hearing. The Applicant has not provided a copy of the recording to the UT or a transcript of that recording for the UT to independently examine the allegation that he was cut off from speaking. In the absence of the objective record, the UT is satisfied that this is bare assertion without substance.