Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Rep and a witness at the same time?
There was a thread on this discussion and within it there was a UT decision confirming that the above is, contrary to the assertion of many FTT judges, perfectly legitimate. I know this because I saved it as a Favourite within my Rightsnet account. When I click on that to take me to the thread I am told that I don’t have permission to do that. When I do a separate search for said thread it appears to have gone.
This is not something I’m in the habit of doing but I’ve a kids DLA re-hearing back from UT and it’s handy to be able to articulate as an adult with a VI what is going on with a child with a VI that they (and indeed their appointee/parent) can’t articulate or don’t know.
So, anyone recall and have a link to the relevant decision?
‘The FTT would have been entitled to hear his evidence. There is nothing to prevent a representative from giving factual evidence of matters within their knowledge. The informality of a tribunal hearing in comparison with a hearing in court, together with the preponderance of representation being by those who may be knowledgeable concerning benefit issues but not necessarily legally qualified, leads to some inevitable blurring of the distinction between representative and witness. The investigative role of the tribunal may also lead it, in certain cases, to find out whether a representative is in a position to give useful evidence. It is of course a matter for the FTT to assess the weight of such evidence, and it should do so with the evidence of a representative in the way that it weighs any evidence.’
SK v SSWP (ESA) [2014] UKUT 141 (AAC)
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/whether-evidence-from-a-representative-is-admissible
And otherwise. I don’t think its a particularly controversial point provided it is done responsibly - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/tribunal-should-consider-whether-there-is-need-to-separate-out-appellants-d
Great response Elliot. Thank you. Sadly the north west has numerous judges for whom it appears to absolutely be an issue and a very black and white one at that. One of the perils of recruitment from barristers although it’s not exclusively them to be scrupulously fair.
I do recall the latter decision but the former is the more useful one. Interestingly neither are the decision I was thinking of. There was a thread titled as per this one and it was a case far more clear cut and addressing the specific issue. However, unless someone from the admin. can find it then the first decision above will get me there.
Can Rightsnet admin. help? Apart from anything else I am now concerned that other cases and threads I have favourited may also have gone AWOL.
Great response Elliot. Thank you. Sadly the north west has numerous judges for whom it appears to absolutely be an issue and a very black and white one at that. One of the perils of recruitment from barristers although it’s not exclusively them to be scrupulously fair.
I do recall the latter decision but the former is the more useful one. Interestingly neither are the decision I was thinking of. There was a thread titled as per this one and it was a case far more clear cut and addressing the specific issue. However, unless someone from the admin. can find it then the first decision above will get me there.
Can Rightsnet admin. help? Apart from anything else I am now concerned that other cases and threads I have favourited may also have gone AWOL.
Haven’t got a copy but recall a Commissioners decision (might have been Williams?) concerning a Tribunal heard in Plymouth and the rep was actually a Social Worker if that rings any bells?
Afraid not. I want to narrow this decision down to a specific time period but frustratingly Favourited items don’t appear in chronological order so I can’t even help on that. Fairly confident this was post 2017 though.
There was a thread on this discussion .... I know this because I saved it as a Favourite within my Rightsnet account. When I click on that to take me to the thread I am told that I don’t have permission to do that. When I do a separate search for said thread it appears to have gone.
Hi Mike ... what’s the link?
Been sleuthing .. was it this one?
Yes, that’s the one.
Cool ....
.... it’s not immediately apparent to me what might have happened ... however, found a snapshot of it here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170510190613/https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11255/
... with a link to CDLA/2462/2003 ..
NB: 2462 (along with CDLA/1138/2003) is also mentioned in CDLA/1490/2006:
Well I would say thanks but it appears that the link is once again blocked by my workplace. Sigh. No worries. I shall have a look on my iPad in a moment.
FWIW I appear to have a number of dead Favourites. The live ones still have a date attached. The dead ones do not.
You’ve not done a Myspace have you? 😊
Well I would say thanks but it appears that the link is once again blocked by my workplace. Sigh.
how do they expect you to do your job if you can’t access the necessary info? bizarre…...
Can read it on my ipad now having been out for the night and that’s definitely the thread I was looking for. My recall that the decisions were more recent was clearly wrong but I’ve found what I needed. Thank you all. Much appreciated.
Interesting to read that two years ago I was concerned we had a couple of judges in the NW who believed you can’t do both and now we have more.