(I’ll try to keep this brief: My client had attended 2 HRm hearings both of which were appealed to a higher level and subsequently I assisted with the 3rd tribunal)

The LQM called myself and Dept Rep in for an informal (off the record) discussion in which they informed that they felt the evidence supported the 2nd Tribunal's decision and they were inclined to give the same limited award.

I argued that this was inadequate as this evidence also showed that the client would take 10mins to walk 100m and this was so slow to be VUTW. I suggested that given the opportunity I could provide unreported case law to support this.

Tribunal then suggested that if I was not in agreement they could disallow outright as in the 1st appeal decision.

I then suggested that the tribunal seemed to have prejudged the case.

On re-entering with the client I immediately requested an adjournment for 3 reasons as given the earlier discussion I felt it was unfair to proceed.

Adjournments refused and decision given to disallow outright after hearing the appellant's oral evidence.

SOR does not record the "informal chat" and omits all reference to it in the adjournment request.

How would other reps proceed in this situation? All comments welcome.

TBH, i would not have had the informal chat.

appeal. again.

Informal chats can be fine, so i don't think I would necessarily agree with Claire. That said, i would only expect the tribunal to do that if it felt that the appeal would be allowed in full, which means the tribunal must be aware of the sought after outcome. As one full time judge said to me and a JCP PO recently, she didn't see why a client should be put through the stress of an oral hearing when the evidence was sufficiently strong to have allowed the appeal on the appers alone. I recall an unreported decision some time ago where something similar happened, and the commissioner (as was then) was very critical of the tribunal for not carrying out a full hearing of the case. Undoubtedly you should appeal - I would think that the prospects of success are very high and the PO should be able to confirm that the pre-hearing chat took place (as should the clerk). Whilst I welcome tribunals keeping as short as possible any hearing where the appeal will be allowed (because there is nothing or very little to be asked), there is a danger, as in this case, of ending up with a hearing that clearly does not appear fair to the appellant

Brian

Have a look at Commissioner Parker's decision in CSDLA/606/2003 at

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=1267

David