Tribunal practice

I have represented claimants at Tribunals since 2004, and this has never happened to any of my clients before – seven years.

ESA appeal, young lady with mental health problems attended with her mother. The judge, a new one I had never seen before, abruptly ordered the mother to attend outside. The Tribunal interrogated the daughter and the mother separately, to check if they said the truth. Luckily my clients were impeccable, and won. Yet only a memory slip could have been disastrous.

Was this a fair trial? Considering the fact that the ‘medical practitioner’ blatantly lied in her Medical Report, only one party was treated as a criminal. 

And, important, are there any Tribunal rules or good practice issues I can use to object to similar treatment in future?

Please any help.

Rule 30 of the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunals) (SEC) Rules certainly gives tribunals the discretion to exclude any person from part or the whole of a hearing in certain circumstances; to exclude a witness from the hearing until that witness gives evidence; and to direct that all or part of a hearing is held in private. It sounds as though it was the way in which it was done which came over badly. The fact that the tribunal “may” give directions under rule 30 certainly means(in my view) that it should not be done as a blanket approach - the tribunal should always consider the overriding objective at rule 2 to deal with cases fairly and justly, which includes avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings.

Thank you Soviet Leader,
so it is in the Tribunal’s power to choose to do that. I am surprised that it has never happened before to any of my clients.

I’ve encountered it a few times though mainly in relation to cohab appeals (where the ex partner or friends/other family members have attended as witnesses). I agree that it sounds like it was the way it was done that came across as a bit untoward rather than the fact that it was done at all.