Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
DWP submission to tribunal
I’m quite shocked by the tone of the DWP submission, I can’t see how a DM could ‘reserve the right’ to an adjournment, as far as I understand it the only right they (or anyone else for that matter) has is to request an adjournment and it would be for the tribunal to hear arguments about why it is warranted.
I very much hope that any tribunal who was sent such a sub would begin proceedings by saying quite clearly and unequivocally that they reject that blanket request unless or until there was some legal or factual reason for an adjournment.
Tribunals have a duty to deal with appeals in a timely and fair manner and I cannot see why they would adjourn and allow the hearing to take up another time slot at some date in the future if the remedy of sending a rep is in the respondent’s hands.
has the hallmarks of a DM running amuck with the ‘cut and paste’ function - only time three’s been even a hint of a Tribunal looking to adjourn if there isn’t a PO attending is if we’ve turned up with a wodge of additional evidence (three pages seems to be a rough rule of thumb - as being acceptable). Can’s see any reasonable judge going with a their reserving the right to request an adjournment - think they may mean they reserve the right to seek a set-a-side? But then who can tell.
Have a TUG next week (provided it goes ahead - may run it past them?
has the hallmarks of a DM running amuck with the ‘cut and paste’ function - only time three’s been even a hint of a Tribunal looking to adjourn if there isn’t a PO attending is if we’ve turned up with a wodge of additional evidence (three pages seems to be a rough rule of thumb - as being acceptable). Can’s see any reasonable judge going with a their reserving the right to request an adjournment - think they may mean they reserve the right to seek a set-a-side? But then who can tell.
Have a TUG next week (provided it goes ahead - may run it past them?
I don’t think that DWP could necessarily ask for a set aside. Although Rule 37 of the FT rules says that decision can be set aside if a party to the proceedings wasn’t present at the hearing there must be some application of natural justice if the Respondent has been sent notice of the hearing date but has decided not to appear.
Perhaps the solution is for judges to do what they do when it looks like the appellant is late and ask the clerk to ring DWP to ask if they are sending someone- if they aren’t then the hearing could legitimately go ahead without the Respondent’s rep. and no set aside under Rule 37 should be allowed
Having had a ponder, could be they are not hitting their targets (perish the thought) and are trying to get Tribunals to adjourn if their is additional information put forward on the day? We do get a fair bit of lee way down here, though have had some issues with Judge getting sniffy if I put a written submission in on the day - to the point we’ve had more of an argument over whether I should just read the submission in to evidence rather than hand it in (in my defence I make sure that if I am handing it in on the day, I get to the venue bright and early, with copies for all concerned (got to keep on the clerk’s good side).
The wording to me sounds more like they are attempting to make sure that the Tribunal will always adjourn if ‘additional’ evidence is put in on the day - if this is the case maybe as reps we need to ‘reserve the right to request that the DM (at the very least) attend every hearing?