The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published guidance by way of practice direction from Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, outlining the reasons for tribunal decisions. Key points include:
providing concise reasons for a decision is encouraged, stating reasons at any greater length than is necessary in the particular case is not in the interests of justice and would be an inefficient use of judicial time;
the FTT will generally be taken to be aware of the relevant authorities within the jurisdiction being exercised, and to be applying those cases without the need to refer to them specifically;
the UT will not readily assume that a tribunal has misdirected itself merely because every step in its reasoning is not fully set out in its decision;
in any challenge to a decision, a realistic and reasonably benevolent approach will be taken such that decisions under appeal will be read fairly and not hypercritically; and
a challenge based on the adequacy of reasons should only succeed when the appellate body cannot understand the tribunal’s thought process in making material findings.
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published guidance by way of practice direction from Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, outlining the reasons for tribunal decisions. Key points include:
providing concise reasons for a decision is encouraged, stating reasons at any greater length than is necessary in the particular case is not in the interests of justice and would be an inefficient use of judicial time;
the FTT will generally be taken to be aware of the relevant authorities within the jurisdiction being exercised, and to be applying those cases without the need to refer to them specifically;
the UT will not readily assume that a tribunal has misdirected itself merely because every step in its reasoning is not fully set out in its decision;
in any challenge to a decision, a realistic and reasonably benevolent approach will be taken such that decisions under appeal will be read fairly and not hypercritically; and
a challenge based on the adequacy of reasons should only succeed when the appellate body cannot understand the tribunal’s thought process in making material findings.
