Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
1st Tier Judge making deciding whether error in law on their own decision
Mike
Are you deliberately misreading what my friend Garvey said or do you just not get it? Her point is that if a decision is not set aside because the same judge has dealt with it twice, then the argument that another judge will look at it later and the right decision will be made in the end is of no use if the claimant dies before the right decision is ever reached.
How can this possibly not be significant? If a claimant never recieves her entitlement because she is dead that’s about as significant as you can get. It means she has unfairly been robbed of her entitlement for ever.
That this doesn’t happen all that often is neither here nor there to the individuals involved, is it? It shouldn’t happen at all. Ever.
I suspect everyone is fed up with this thread by now not because it is not important but because reading someone else’s bickering is pretty tedious, so if you wish to have an ongoing dialogue with me feel free to email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Maybe then other contributors can add things which are helpful and actually worth reading.
Chris, the only person who has “bickered” here and levelled personal insults is your good self. The rest are very much on or around the topic. I note you’d rather make an accusation about my being hard of reading than address the fact you drew an inaccurate analogy in your previous post! I’m very much sticking to the OP theme and happy to debate that in a factual, calm, evidenced manner.
I was very clear in the response you now challenge. I asked specifically in what sense did the poster think such a thing was significant. It goes without saying it’s always significant to individuals. That doesn’t make it statistically significant and, as observed, the delays once at UT level are much more significant and likely to lead to the scenario described than any delays at the point this thread discusses. The attempt to drum up some false outrage because occasionally people die when part of a process that will always have some delays is not the standard of discussion I would expect here. The snipes that we’re all essentially wrong because we’re in the majority; cosying up to tribunals and accepting the status quo etc. is an argument which lacks the rigour this place deserves.
I’ve no interest in the debate outside of this thread but thanks for the offer.
As I’ve said previously I don’t think there are any new points being made on the theme of the OP.
[ Edited: 28 Jul 2014 at 10:17 am by Mike Hughes ]There seems to be some conflation, and confusion, in this thread.
For what it’s worth, I think that we may have to live with a pragmatic trade off between the inconvenience for our customers caused by delays and the inconvenience caused for them by a tribunal decision being wrong. There are also accountability issues involved.
Apologies Kurt. Missed your post. Good points all. Think the above quote nails them all :) Putting aside the view that what was originally complained of here is probably the least of all the issues re: delay and accountability it’s also worth observing that the phrase “be careful what you wish for” is likely to come into play increasingly in the coming months.
Given the stats. at the last GMWRAG about the low numbers of MRs progressing to appeal that is likely to be reflected eventually in a speeding up of the UT process. That is not automatically a good thing as you have observed. We already have issues with the whole “separate claim needed for means-tested ESA at the end of 365 days” not being allowed to progress to case-law. I suspect that the next thing will be that FTT judges will actually likely set aside a great deal more FTT decisions as a means of self-preservation; keeping venues available to them etc. so… whole thing a moot point really.
Presumably no-one will be overly concerned when FTT judges start doing this or will forensically examine whether it was their own decision they set aside…
This thread has turned into a foucauldian discourse analysist’s petri dish.
As far as I am aware Mike you are not the final arbiter on what can be written or not on these threads.
Conflation should not be confused with exposition and as for relevance .... may I remind you of Dexys midnight runners :)
As for majority opinion it seemed 40/60
Dexys :) Now if you could just point out where I’ve claimed to be an arbiter of any sort here, let alone the final one… I suggested it might be sensible to close the thread as the sensible discussion was done. What has followed hardly suggests it was a misconceived suggestion but it was not my decision and hasn’t been acted on. I’ve no problem with that.
It is generally accepted netiquette that if one has a point that moves away from the OPs topic, which in this case was very specific, then one starts a separate thread. It’s not obligatory, merely the polite thing to do. It’s also common sense in that it aids future searches and renders the forum less useful if discussions on one topic (delays) are hidden inside another actual topic (whether a FTT judge should revisit their own decision). It’s not obligatory but there are sensible reasons for it.
PS: Absolutely love how the two of you are absolutely not picking on me at all yet conspicuously fail to address those issues by the legally qualified on this thread. Funny that.
[ Edited: 29 Jul 2014 at 12:57 am by Mike Hughes ]Well done to everyone who has contributed to getting this thread into the most popular posts list.
What was it about again?
This thread has turned into a foucauldian discourse analysist’s petri dish.
what on earth is one of them? (just to go off topic)
and back on topic - why is what is good for the county court/high court/court of appeal and even, in some cases, the supreme court, not good enough for a first tier tribunal?
Hello everyone,
Here is an up-date.
The case that this thread began with has just come back to me from the UT. The matter has been granted leave to appeal to the UT but, quite embarrassingly, on different grounds than those I submitted. Oh dear, we do live and learn don’t we? I still feel my original grounds hold merit and maybe I’ll get the chance to better explain them as the case progresses. I suppose this has added a further and final element to the thread.
Have a good weekend all.
Thank you.
Patrick
Hello everyone,
Here is an up-date.
The case that this thread began with has just come back to me from the UT. The matter has been granted leave to appeal to the UT but, quite embarrassingly, on different grounds than those I submitted. Oh dear, we do live and learn don’t we? I still feel my original grounds hold merit and maybe I’ll get the chance to better explain them as the case progresses. I suppose this has added a further and final element to the thread.
Have a good weekend all.
Thank you.
Patrick
Do you feel the new grounds have merit?
The new grounds appear to explore the actions, or inactions, or better described the not sure what actions the DM has taken in this case of JSA sanctions. Indeed, the issues raised by the UT Judge seem to me to be addressing sokme points that I have sort of pondered on myself but haven’t been sure of the questions let alone the answers to the questions. I might be more explicit once the SoS had responded to the UT Judges Directions.
Thank you.
Patrick.
The new grounds appear to explore the actions, or inactions, or better described the not sure what actions the DM has taken in this case of JSA sanctions. Indeed, the issues raised by the UT Judge seem to me to be addressing sokme points that I have sort of pondered on myself but haven’t been sure of the questions let alone the answers to the questions. I might be more explicit once the SoS had responded to the UT Judges Directions.
Thank you.
Patrick.
Don’t feel bad, many errors of law are subjective decisions and we cannot be expected to have the level of expertise that upper tribunal judges have in this area because they spend all day assessing whether errors of law have occurred.
The new grounds appear to explore the actions, or inactions, or better described the not sure what actions the DM has taken in this case of JSA sanctions. Indeed, the issues raised by the UT Judge seem to me to be addressing sokme points that I have sort of pondered on myself but haven’t been sure of the questions let alone the answers to the questions. I might be more explicit once the SoS had responded to the UT Judges Directions.
Thank you.
Patrick.
Don’t feel bad, many errors of law are subjective decisions and we cannot be expected to have the level of expertise that upper tribunal judges have in this area because they spend all day assessing whether errors of law have occurred.
Hmm, is that why those judges who sit all day of first tier stuff based out of Liverpool consistently refuse leave to appeal only to find clear grounds found by London almost every time? Must be :)
The new grounds appear to explore the actions, or inactions, or better described the not sure what actions the DM has taken in this case of JSA sanctions. Indeed, the issues raised by the UT Judge seem to me to be addressing sokme points that I have sort of pondered on myself but haven’t been sure of the questions let alone the answers to the questions. I might be more explicit once the SoS had responded to the UT Judges Directions.
Thank you.
Patrick.
Don’t feel bad, many errors of law are subjective decisions and we cannot be expected to have the level of expertise that upper tribunal judges have in this area because they spend all day assessing whether errors of law have occurred.
Hmm, is that why those judges who sit all day of first tier stuff based out of Liverpool consistently refuse leave to appeal only to find clear grounds found by London almost every time? Must be :)
Can you explain that again please, I do not understand what you have written.
It was a comment on the interesting idea that we don’t always identify all errors of law and that UT judges do it better cos they do it all day. I was saying that if doing it all day was the qualification then why do First Tier and full-time judges in Liverpool consistently find no grounds for level to appeal when they would also appear eminently qualified to do so?
Hidden in there was the implication that what most of us said initially on this thread, that there was no error of law on the specific point raised, was indeed held to be the case.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. It’s already been a long week!
It was a comment on the interesting idea that we don’t always identify all errors of law and that UT judges do it better cos they do it all day. I was saying that if doing it all day was the qualification then why do First Tier and full-time judges in Liverpool consistently find no grounds for level to appeal when they would also appear eminently qualified to do so?
Hidden in there was the implication that what most of us said initially on this thread, that there was no error of law on the specific point raised, was indeed held to be the case.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. It’s already been a long week!
If the lower tier judges are not identifying grounds to appeal, when there are some they are either biased or do not have the capability to do their jobs.
If I was assessing whether there were errors of law on say 30 cases a week (I do not have a clue of how many cases upper tribunal judges assess a week) I would have a greater level of expertise then I do at present in this area.
..I do not have a clue of how many cases upper tribunal judges assess a week..
About 8-10 new applications I understand. Quite impressive really if you consider that over half of those are probably claimants ranting about errors of fact and so can be dismissed quickly. Which leaves 2-3 I’d imagine which require a fair bit of analysis and further work.
The new grounds appear to explore the actions, or inactions, or better described the not sure what actions the DM has taken in this case of JSA sanctions. Indeed, the issues raised by the UT Judge seem to me to be addressing sokme points that I have sort of pondered on myself but haven’t been sure of the questions let alone the answers to the questions. I might be more explicit once the SoS had responded to the UT Judges Directions.
Thank you.
Patrick.
Don’t feel bad, many errors of law are subjective decisions and we cannot be expected to have the level of expertise that upper tribunal judges have in this area because they spend all day assessing whether errors of law have occurred.
Hello,
Thank you for your input but I’m not sure that I feel bad, more bemused I suppose. There have been many refusals over the years so I guess I’m more thick skinned these days. The UT judge is asking some very important questions as to the decision making aspects of the case. My initial application for leave questioned whether the DM had properly followed procedures, or indeed, if there are any procedures to follow when making determinations about sanctions. Secondly the question of reasonableness was sought in my application; both of these issues have been dismissed out of hand in favour of the UT’s questions, not in addition to. Maybe I am mistaken, maybe I am not. To paraphrase: “it was the best if times, it was the worst of times” and, more recently, it really is the most confusing of times.
Never mind all.
Thank you.
Patrick