Tribunal Issue

Hi

This might seen as a strange question but we are representing a client, who we are supporting at a PIP appeal, who we currently have concerns about whether they are genuine or not.

As suggested by someone on here, we are doing independent verification on her evidence and the client has agreed to this provisionally.

Unfortunately, we have the appeal next Friday and I’m not sure I will have everything back by then. Am I able to contact the tribunal confidentially to explain this without them sending the conversation to the client?

Any help and advice would be much appreciated as this is something new for me.

Thanks

Adam

Sounds like you’re waiting for evidence, so write a postponement request on that basis?

Asking the tribunal to postpone because you’re not confident in your clients credibility might not do wonders for your clients, well, credibility.

This is, I take it, the case where the issue is whether certain documents are genuine and the issue can be conclusively resolved by asking the purported author of those documents.

That being the case, I don’t see any issue of principle in asking for an adjournment to wait for the author to respond. That would need to be framed as “it would be helpful for the Tribunal to receive this evidence in order to be better able to determine the case” rather than “it would be helpful for me to receive this evidence in order to determine whether my client is fibbing”.

There may be other objections to an adjournment, for instance on the basis that you really ought to have requested this material months ago or if the Tribunal feels that there is enough in the bundle to resolve the matter.

You would need to decide in advance whether, if the adjournment is refused, you would be prepared to argue the case on its merits or whether it would be necessary for you to withdraw by reason of what lawyers might call ‘professional embarrassment’.

I’d probably go for “unable to determine without” if possible rather than “better able to determine”. Any postponement request is likely to fall to a clerk. In the latter instance they’ll either refuse or put it to a judge who may “determine” that they don’t need to be “better able” to do anything. “Able” would suffice for them to proceed. On the other hand the word unable, assuming it to be accurate of course, would be problematic for a clerk if they refused the request. 

Equally I would be firmly explaining to my appellant that there is no guarantee of a postponement at this point and so they may wish to focus all concerned on the matter at hand else it will be determined on the evidence as is.

Not sure I would decide to withdraw myself in advance. Most tribunals appreciate full honesty and disclosure as to where the case is at and why and provided that’s the approach and the client understands what will likely happen if they proceed absent the above then the appellant gets first call on whether they wish to proceed. If they do then only at that point do you consider your position.