When does a hearing end - uninterpreted ‘banter’

I’m about to send in a letter complaining about the language used by a FTT - pre-judging a case, biased language which may well suggest to a reasonable on-looker the presence of bias, assumptions and sweeping generalisations about sections of the community which colour their view of the appellant and the evidence.

As part of the complaint, I want to mention that there was an exchange of ‘banter’ between the interpreter and the panel, about a new word he had had to interpret. This took place as we were standing up to leave and were walking out towards the tribunal room door (ie the formal hearing had finished).  That short conversation was not interpreted and neither did the Panel direct the interpreter to do so. The banter was about an aspect of the language which is part of my complaint.

My question is: was the hearing over (so no use raising that point) or was there still a duty to interpret?  I recall a case a long time ago (which I cant find now) where the pre-hearing conversation between a judge and rep as soon as you step into the tribunal room, was considered as part of the hearing. Would the same apply here - I havent found any authority so am relying on natural justice, right to a fair hearing, judicial propriety etc

Does anyone know?

I’m sure somebody can give the name and letter of the law, but as far as I’m concerned, any contact the tribunal has with the appellant is potentially relevant to the outcome of the appeal, such as seeing the appellant walking across the road on the way to the tribunal centre. If the exchange between the interpreter and the tribunal had an effect on the outcome of the hearing, then it is indeed relevant, particularly if the appellant wasn’t given an opportunity to address it.

I have always treated hearings as beginning when you step into the room and ending when you step out.

Totally agree with Edmund.