Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Judicial review, activities of government, local and national etc.

Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby dangermouse » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:28 pm

I’m drafting grounds of appeal for the Upper Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) and I think I’ve got at least five grounds but I’m not sure whether each of my grounds should deal with the part of the decision that I believe is wrong and then detail which error(s) of law informed that finding or alternatively if I should present each error of law as a separate ground, even though this will result in a larger number of them.

For example, with the first approach my first ground would be something like this:

Ground 1: In concluding that the Grand Chamber’s ruling and Article 10 are not relevant or have no bearing on their decision and that my Convention rights can be secured by some alternative route outside of FOIA the Tribunal has

i) disregarded a relevant statutory provision
ii) misunderstood or misconstructed the law
iii) failed to give effect to a binding decision of a superior court
iv) reached a conclusion unsupported by the evidence

and then I would go on to explain i) what s.2, s.3 and s.6 HRA required the Tribunal and the other parties to do and how they failed to comply with these duties; ii) how the Tribunal erred in interpreting the case law; iii) why the Grand Chamber’s decision was binding on the Tribunal; iv) that there is no alternative route I could use outside of FOIA to secure my rights and that no evidence was submitted to the Tribunal to give them reason to conclude that there was.

If the second approach is the correct one however, my five grounds would probably become about ten as I would have to separate the arguments like this:

Ground 1: In concluding that the Grand Chamber’s decision and Article 10 are not relevant or have no bearing on the decision the Tribunal has disregarded a relevant statutory provision.

Ground 2: In concluding that the Grand Chamber’s decision and Article 10 are not relevant or have no bearing on the decision the Tribunal has misunderstood or misconstructed the law.

Ground 3: In concluding that the Grand Chamber’s decision and Article 10 are not relevant or have no bearing on the decision the Tribunal has failed to give effect to a binding decision of a superior court.

Ground 4: In concluding that my Convention rights can be secured by some alternative route outside of the FOIA the Tribunal has reached a conclusion unsupported by the evidence.

with the relevant arguments set out under each ground.

Obviously I want to present my grounds in the manner which the UTT expects to see them, so which is the correct/expected way to present them?
dangermouse
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 5:55 pm

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby atticus » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:40 pm

The first approach is cleaner and neater, and will be preferred.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19893
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby dangermouse » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:01 pm

Thanks. That is the approach I started with but then I started to worry that it might be the wrong one, so I appreciate your advice.
dangermouse
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 5:55 pm

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby atticus » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:37 pm

That approach shows that you can organise your thoughts.

The other way looks repetitive and as if you are trying to make it look as if you have more grounds than you have.

Quality is preferable to quantity. Make sure you put your strongest points first.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19893
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby dls » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:20 am

Very minor - did you mean 'misconstrued'?
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12273
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby dangermouse » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:47 am

atticus wrote:That approach shows that you can organise your thoughts.

The other way looks repetitive and as if you are trying to make it look as if you have more grounds than you have.

Quality is preferable to quantity. Make sure you put your strongest points first.


Yeah, I can see the benefits to the first approach now.

I'm fairly happy that I've presented my strongest grounds first. My main difficulty is knowing how concise they should be, as I wouldn't expect to be granted permission if I simply assert that the Tribunal has made certain errors of law without showing how they have done so but equally I don't want it to be so lengthy that the judge can't be bothered to read it. At the moment it's just over five pages, which I could probably trim down to five but the T96 form only provides a single page to explain my grounds and the outcome I'm seeking and doesn't indicate that I can use additional pages http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/H ... %20Chamber

If I'm limited to one page I can do little more than list the errors of law under each ground, with no detail to show how they occurred.
dangermouse
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 5:55 pm

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby dangermouse » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:50 am

dls wrote:Very minor - did you mean 'misconstrued'?


I meant to say misconstructed but only because that's what I read here http://haqsolicitors.co.uk/2014/10/01/w ... -tribunal/

Is misconstrued the correct term, as I'd rather avoid making a stupid mistake like that in my application?
dangermouse
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 5:55 pm

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:53 am

Misconstrued.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19893
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Appealing to UTT - Correct way to present grounds?

Postby dangermouse » Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:25 pm

Thanks.
dangermouse
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 5:55 pm


Return to Administrative Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest