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.