What are Procedural Irregularities?

Vek

@poppy12345 I'm not a legal expert but I do know to a large extent what is good and bad.

I have my own idea about the matter but thought I have others before presenting what I could gather for the individual to decide what to do with the information given no expert appeared able to help without the Upper Tribunal extending time of compliance. 

HillStreetBlues

It's just not a case of good and bad, it's a case of good and bad from a legal standpoint.
It's good or bad the judge dozed off?,  what is the legal position of the judge doing so?
You can get personal opinions of the former,  but no answers on here the latter.

With your OP I feel you're looking for the latter,   but if it's the former I think it's terrible that two people have dozed during a persons appeal.

Spoonie_Turtle

There is case law available at https://wcainfo.net/issues/practice-and-procedure and https://pipinfo.net/issues/tribunal-practice, if you're looking for more legal information.  (Whether any of it is relevant I don't know, sorry.)

Alice_Holt

 FTT procedural irregularities could include:

i) the tribunal proceeding with a paper hearing when the appellant requested to give verbal evidence,
ii) failing to include in evidence bundle / consider all the evidence submitted,
iii) proceeding when the appellant does not have a copy of the evidence bundle,
iv) failure to comply with the rules as laid out in the tribunal procedures legislation,
v) failure to notify all parties of relevant paperwork / directions 

All of these could be sufficient to cause the appeal to be set aside and reheard by a new panel.  

TELLIT01

People on here will argue about whether it's "legal" to throw branches cut of neighbour's trees back into their gardens, so I wouldn't put too much weight behind their opinions on what is and is not acceptable within a tribunal or court of law.

NedS

TELLIT01 said:

People on here will argue about whether it's "legal" to throw branches cut of neighbour's trees back into their gardens, so I wouldn't put too much weight behind their opinions on what is and is not acceptable within a tribunal or court of law.

Absolutely. If it's important, pay for proper legal advice.

Vek

Alice_Holt said:

 FTT procedural irregularities could include:

i) the tribunal proceeding with a paper hearing when the appellant requested to give verbal evidence,
ii) failing to include in evidence bundle / consider all the evidence submitted,
iii) proceeding when the appellant does not have a copy of the evidence bundle,
iv) failure to comply with the rules as laid out in the tribunal procedures legislation,
v) failure to notify all parties of relevant paperwork / directions 

All of these could be sufficient to cause the appeal to be set aside and reheard by a new panel.  

Could you let me know your personal opinion in relation to the Originating Post as to whether you could see any procedural irregularity? 

Alice_Holt

Vek said:

Alice_Holt said:

 FTT procedural irregularities could include:

i) the tribunal proceeding with a paper hearing when the appellant requested to give verbal evidence,
ii) failing to include in evidence bundle / consider all the evidence submitted,
iii) proceeding when the appellant does not have a copy of the evidence bundle,
iv) failure to comply with the rules as laid out in the tribunal procedures legislation,
v) failure to notify all parties of relevant paperwork / directions 

All of these could be sufficient to cause the appeal to be set aside and reheard by a new panel.  

Could you let me know your personal opinion in relation to the Originating Post as to whether you could see any procedural irregularity? 

         Somewhat difficult as it would require an examination of the paperwork including ideally the evidence bundle, and certainly the statement of reasons, and the notes of the FTT, plus some knowledge of the proceedings, and most importantly, I am not in any way, an expert in these matter.   

But if you still accept my personal opinion, re:

 "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..."

i) there is no right to cross-examine in a tribunal, instead the tribunal judge will invite participants to speak in order that the panel can get all the evidence they need to decide if the decision under appeal is correct or not. The appellant can request (of the tribunal judge) to speak (for instance after a presenting officer has given evidence), generally I would expect this request is granted.

ii) all the evidence should be given during the hearing with all parties present. I would not expect a tribunal judge to take evidence (from just one party) after formally closing the hearing. That could be in breach of the tribunal rules.       

Vek

@Alice_Holt Thank you.

I think from your personal opinion that cross-examination is not a right (probably in view of the Tribunal inquisitorial power), it created the impression that the judge has a discretion in the matter as to whether to allow the DWP staff to be summoned (as requested by the Appellant but refused by the FTT Judge) for interrogation or cross-examination. 

I think that will be a very good ground for judicial review on grounds of unfairness but need to do more research about it.