Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Consenting to a paper hearing by default
Useful to know. Have had occasions where I’ve had no immediate access to an SSCS1 and a short time scale so have submitted letters. Have always remembered to say “oral hearing” even if I wasn’t yet confirmed as rep. (as wanted to see facts of case first).
Can see advantage to HMCTS of such a policy given the current backlogs.
Whilst not against Rule 27(1)(a) it does appear against the spirit of this Rule
Decision with or without a hearing
27.
—
(1)
Subject to the following paragraphs, the Tribunal must hold a hearing before making a decision which disposes of proceedings unless
—
(a) each party has consented to, or has not objected to, the matter being decided without a hearing; and
(b) the Tribunal considers that it is able to decide the matter without a hearing.
Surely ‘...or has not objected to…’ implies an opportunity to object must be given?
Whilst not against Rule 27(1)(a) it does appear against the spirit of this Rule
Decision with or without a hearing
27.
—
(1)
Subject to the following paragraphs, the Tribunal must hold a hearing before making a decision which disposes of proceedings unless
—
(a) each party has consented to, or has not objected to, the matter being decided without a hearing; and
(b) the Tribunal considers that it is able to decide the matter without a hearing.Surely ‘...or has not objected to…’ implies an opportunity to object must be given?
I rather suspect HMCTS would argue that being required by the letter to notify them if she wanted an oral hearing would by definition / default amount to that opportunity / having objected if an oral was actually requested.
It will be interesting to see how our application for set aside is decided.