We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
What are Procedural Irregularities?
Vek
Posts: 12 Forumite
UT Judge - Unusually directed the Respondent to attend the Permissions Hearing. Judge made a conditional statement that IF the Respondent wishes to provide a Skeleton Argument or Written Submission, then it should address each of the grounds upon which the Appellant's sought permission to appeal and to be Lodged and Served at least 10 working days before the scheduled hearing date.
Respondent - Counsel disregarded the Directions of the judge and the Skeleton Argument didn't comply with the time requirement as it was received far less than 10 working days. Also did not address any of the grounds upon which the Appellant sought permission to appeal both the JSA and ESA Entitlement and Overpayment decisions.
Appellant - Sought directions from the judge's for the Respondent to give effect to the judge's direction that led to the unusual invitation for the Respondent to participate at the permissions hearing. Amongst the grounds advanced to seek permission (not exhaustive):
(1) The entitlement decision was not properly revised and was not served in accordance with law.
(2). The First Tier Tribunal failed to allow the Appellant to cross-examine the Respondent's staff who communicated to the FTT after the hearing concluded. The FTT accepted this late communication as the true facts of the case and decided the written submissions from the Respondent before and during the hearing as well as oral submission made by Presenting Officer(s) to the FTT were presumptuous. Yet the FTT failed for that Respondent staff to be called upon and be cross-examined. This the Appellant submitted was a violation of the principles of natural justice that should be cured by the Upper Tribunal.
UT Judge - decided not to give directions for Respondent to comply with earlier directions and stated that he actually don't require the Skeleton Argument of the Respondent.
Hearing - Judge dozed off momentarily a few times during the Applellant's submission and the Respondent Advocate dozed off but not as much as the judge during the Appellant's submission.
Decision - After about a year of the permission's hearing the judge refused permission to appeal and the judge relied heavily on the Skeleton Argument of the Respondent that he had directed he actually don't require it. On an aspect of the case that the Respondent Advocate reluctantly conceded at the Oral Hearing to be an error of law, the Judge decided that would be accounted for in terms of the debt repayment and still refused permission to appeal despite that admitted error of law.
Are there procedural irregularities looking at the above stated case that took place at the Upper Tribunal for the refusal decision be set aside under Rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008?
Respondent - Counsel disregarded the Directions of the judge and the Skeleton Argument didn't comply with the time requirement as it was received far less than 10 working days. Also did not address any of the grounds upon which the Appellant sought permission to appeal both the JSA and ESA Entitlement and Overpayment decisions.
Appellant - Sought directions from the judge's for the Respondent to give effect to the judge's direction that led to the unusual invitation for the Respondent to participate at the permissions hearing. Amongst the grounds advanced to seek permission (not exhaustive):
(1) The entitlement decision was not properly revised and was not served in accordance with law.
(2). The First Tier Tribunal failed to allow the Appellant to cross-examine the Respondent's staff who communicated to the FTT after the hearing concluded. The FTT accepted this late communication as the true facts of the case and decided the written submissions from the Respondent before and during the hearing as well as oral submission made by Presenting Officer(s) to the FTT were presumptuous. Yet the FTT failed for that Respondent staff to be called upon and be cross-examined. This the Appellant submitted was a violation of the principles of natural justice that should be cured by the Upper Tribunal.
UT Judge - decided not to give directions for Respondent to comply with earlier directions and stated that he actually don't require the Skeleton Argument of the Respondent.
Hearing - Judge dozed off momentarily a few times during the Applellant's submission and the Respondent Advocate dozed off but not as much as the judge during the Appellant's submission.
Decision - After about a year of the permission's hearing the judge refused permission to appeal and the judge relied heavily on the Skeleton Argument of the Respondent that he had directed he actually don't require it. On an aspect of the case that the Respondent Advocate reluctantly conceded at the Oral Hearing to be an error of law, the Judge decided that would be accounted for in terms of the debt repayment and still refused permission to appeal despite that admitted error of law.
Are there procedural irregularities looking at the above stated case that took place at the Upper Tribunal for the refusal decision be set aside under Rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008?
0
Comments
-
I know it's worth a shot, but I feel a legal forum, especially on this type of law is your best option of getting the advice you seek.
Let's Be Careful Out There0 -
I think this is far too complex for any online forum and you need to find an expert with experience of this sort of thing. https://advicelocal.uk/
0 -
Any direction or suggestion to such legal forum?HillStreetBlues said:I know it's worth a shot, but I feel a legal forum, especially on this type of law is your best option of getting the advice you seek.0 -
@poppy12345 The time frame to address the matter appeared to be a limiting factor as to capacity. The first post was made in the absence of capacity from those "expert welfare benefits lawyers/caseworkers" (commercial, probono).poppy12345 said:I think this is far too complex for any online forum and you need to find an expert with experience of this sort of thing. [advicelocal.uk]0 -
Sorry I don't. I haven't used any legal forum.Vek said:
Any direction or suggestion to such legal forum?HillStreetBlues said:I know it's worth a shot, but I feel a legal forum, especially on this type of law is your best option of getting the advice you seek.
I should have ended my first post with "for free"
Let's Be Careful Out There0 -
I think you will have problems finding any forum which will give legal advice. They may give their opinion, just as people do here, but for proper legal advice you need to speak to a lawyer familiar with that area of law.
1 -
Law is more about opinion and status hence heavily protected by lawyers and the judiciary.TELLIT01 said:I think you will have problems finding any forum which will give legal advice. They may give their opinion, just as people do here, but for proper legal advice you need to speak to a lawyer familiar with that area of law.0 -
Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Some rules may be different in other parts of UK.0
-
@calcotti The individual explored those options and lack of capacity due to time constraints. [Many legal centres across England appeared interested as Welfare Benefits at the Upper Tribunal can be funded under legal aid].
I brought the matter here with the brief provided in the originating post to understand people's respective opinions as to procedural Irregularities.0 -
We are not experts so asking for others opinions regarding this isn't the place to ask. You need specialists advice.Vek said:
I brought the matter here with the brief provided in the originating post to understand people's respective opinions as to procedural Irregularities.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards