Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
original judge still involved after set aside. Appropriate?
Wanting some thoughts.
Welfs in the northeast will be aware of a certain “difficult” judge who never allows appeals and uses the most fantastic mental and linguistic gymnastics to refuse the benefit.
Anyhoo, i had yet another one of his statement of reasons blown to bits by UT, and its being re-listed for a new reconstituted hearing at FTT
Just received a complete copy of bundle for the new hearing, and in the envelope there are a rather long list of directions to be followed, written by same judge that was in original hearing. It appears he isnt happy…....
Under rule 2 and the overriding objective, i don’t think he should be anywhere near this appeal from now on and have applied for a variance.
Tribunal have told me he is fully entitled to be involved in the appeal, but is not allowed to sit on the reconstituted panel. Directions can and often can affect the outcome of appeals, so i dont think he should be involved . At all
Thoughts???
I agree. While it may be technically correct that he is not disqualified from giving directions (depending on the terms of the UT directions) it is inappropriate, and will with some justification give the appellant the impression that he/she is not being treated fairly. Who does what in the tribunal is a matter for the regional judge initially so I would suggest referring the matter to that judge, and if no joy there, to the Chamber President.
I don’t really see the objection in principle to have a judge with previous involvement making benign case management directions, as opposed to, say, striking out the appeal.
The main question I think would be whether the substance of what is being directed is objectionable and on what grounds, rather than on the identity of who has directed it.
Welfs in the northeast will be aware of a certain “difficult” judge who never allows appeals and uses the most fantastic mental and linguistic gymnastics to refuse the benefit.
Can we please refrain from saying things like this?
These are public forums and are read by judges amongst others. It is important to remain professional and direct commentary to the substance of what is going on rather than ad hominems. We do not all have the benefit of anonymity.
Although primarily about something else, this case was partially about a judge giving directions to a future panel so you may find something helpful in there, particularly if the content of the directions is designed to try and ensure that elements of the original, overturned decision are carried forward into the next hearing https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/tribunal-found-to-have-breached-procedural-rules-in-relation-to-panel-composition-appearance-of-bias-and-limiting-claimants-rights-to-withdraw-appeal
Welfs in the northeast will be aware of a certain “difficult” judge who never allows appeals and uses the most fantastic mental and linguistic gymnastics to refuse the benefit.
Can we please refrain from saying things like this?
These are public forums and are read by judges amongst others. It is important to remain professional and direct commentary to the substance of what is going on rather than ad hominems. We do not all have the benefit of anonymity.
Whilst it’s important to remain professional and to understand who reads these forums I would defend to the death the right of any of us to raise such issues in the terms above. It needs saying. If the forum is viewed by DWP and tribunal members that’s all well and good, and I hope it’s understood that we all post from professional experience and a solid evidence base, but, these are our conversations not theirs and the day I feel inhibited to not tell the truth as I see it I’ll simply quit. We’ve had similar in the NW and it’s important to say so as new or inexperienced members may actually believe it’s some recurring fault of theirs unless made aware that others experience similar.
Mixed feelings on the issue itself. Technically there is nothing to prevent said judge issuing directions. Morally it’s clearly problematic. Practically I think it’s the wrong thing to get worked up about. Your RJ is unlikely to intervene as they rarely do confrontation. In reality tribunals often have a healthy disregard for the minutiae of UT decisions and subsequent directions. Most likely outcome here is that, if you don’t raise it, the new hearing will likely involve a certain amount of eye-rolling and the complete disregard of any such directions. Having a UT, rightly or wrongly, telling you how to do your job has never gone down well. Having a judge then add directions tends to act as a red rag to a bull. The fact it’s the original judge will be quietly noted and will simply make it more likely the tribunal will wholly disregard anything directed.
The only scenario where a tribunal welcomes the UT decision and/or any subsequent directions is where they know full well their colleague is an arse and quietly welcome the opportunity to reinforce that impression. Over the years having a good relationship with clerks has always been useful in getting to the heart of how such matters were addressed in reality.
[ Edited: 13 Jan 2023 at 12:03 pm by Mike Hughes ]Nothing to stop you challenging the Directions with futher interlocutory submssions and/or asking for further Directions