can any one tell me how much should record of proceedings have, content wise? i have had a couple of copies recently (by the same chair) that seems pretty basic and seem only to highlight aspects of the hearing. in one the statment of reasons refers to something that is not even mentioned in the record of pro's?

Have a look at:

CDLA 4110/97 http://www.hywels.clara.co.uk/commrs/cdla/dl411097.htm

7. A record must mean a written, or typed, document, produced for the purpose of enabling other people, whether on appeal or otherwise, to understand what happened on the hearing of the appeal. To suggest that to produce a document in illegible manuscript complies with the obligations laid down in the Regulations shows, I regret to state, a serious lack of judicial understanding, and even of common good sense.

CDLA 16902/96 http://www.hywels.clara.co.uk/commrs/cdla/dl16902.htm

9. A proper record of the tribunal's proceedings, from which it can be seen that the claimant's case has been given its due consideration and from which the result can be understood, is a requirement of the general law that does not depend on the terms of subordinate legislation: cf. R(A)1/72. Save perhaps where the whole case depends on a simple point of law and no facts are in issue, this requirement is not met without a proper record of the evidence taken, from which it can be seen how the tribunal's findings and conclusions are related to what was placed before them: R(SB) 8/84 para 25, CSSB 212/87 (*6/88) para 3. A tribunal record in the truncated form supplied here without a clear, complete and immediately legible record of the material points put in evidence is almost bound to fall short of this standard and therefore to have to be set aside as erroneous in law.

I recently have successfully argued the propositions set out in R(M) 1/96 in cases where the record is incomplete, and/or does not match with the decision notice. Although one DC has recently put up a very robust defence of their decision when challenged, I have nevertheless been successful in persuading the Commissioner's on the merits of my reasoning...

"First, there is a general requirement on the tribunal to set out reasons and material findings of fact in the written record of their decision to enable it to be seen that they have applied their minds to the right questions and dealt with them on the basis of the right law and proper findings of fact, within the powers conferred on them by the legislation. See R v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex p. Khan <1983> QB 790, 794; R v. Civil Service Appeal Board ex p. Cunningham <1992> ICR, 816 at 827; Evans, Kitchen & Ors v. Secretary of State (transcript p. 24A-E, 27C-E) ", (para 13.1)

"An adverse decision without understandable reasons in such circumstances is bound to lead to a feeling of injustice and while tribunals may of course take different views on the effects of primary evidence, or reach different conclusions on the basis of further or more up to date evidence without being in error of law, I do not think it is imposing too great a burden on them to make sure that the reason for an apparent variation in the treatment of similar relevant facts appears from the record of their decision" (para 15).

Does this help???

John Barrett