PAA (FtT: Oral decision - written reasons)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, claiming to be a national of Iraq aged about 16 and an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, appealed with permission against the First-tier Tribunal's decision dismissing his appeal against the Secretary of State for the Home Department's refusal of his refugee or humanitarian protection claim. The First-tier Tribunal had heard evidence from the Appellant, accompanied by a social worker, and from his guardian. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal arises primarily from a procedural issue concerning the inconsistency between the oral decision given at the hearing, which indicated the appeal would be allowed, and the subsequent written decision dismissing the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal judge's oral decision allowing the appeal at the hearing was legally binding and precluded the issuance of a subsequent written decision dismissing the appeal.
2. Whether the written decision dismissing the appeal, issued after the oral decision allowing it, was made without jurisdiction.
3. The procedural requirements under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 regarding the form and timing of decisions and notifications.
4. The effect of any inconsistency between oral and written decisions on the parties' rights and the appropriate remedy.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the procedural rules governing decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, specifically Rule 29 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, which permits oral decisions at hearings and requires notification and written reasons thereafter. The court found, based on contemporaneous notes from multiple sources, that the First-tier Tribunal judge gave an oral decision allowing the appeal at the hearing, which legally precluded issuing a contradictory written decision dismissing the appeal. The written decision was therefore made without jurisdiction and should be set aside.

The court also considered the procedural implications of the conflicting decisions. It noted that the time for appealing runs from the provision of the written reasons, which in this case were for dismissal, not allowance, but this did not create a procedural problem. The Secretary of State had the opportunity to appeal but did not do so within time, a failure attributed in part to lack of procedural knowledge. The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the risks of ignorance thereof.

Ultimately, the court remade the written decision by substituting a ruling that no jurisdiction existed to issue a second, inconsistent decision, thereby confirming the oral decision allowing the appeal as the valid tribunal decision.

Holding and Implications

The court set aside the First-tier Tribunal's written decision dismissing the appeal and confirmed that the oral decision allowing the appeal stands as the binding decision on the matter.

This ruling means that the Appellant's appeal is allowed as per the oral decision at the hearing, and the Secretary of State's time to appeal that decision has expired. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing procedural rules, but the decision underscores the binding nature of oral decisions given at hearings and the critical importance of procedural compliance by representatives in tribunal proceedings.