SL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IS) and Carlisle City Council (HB): [2017] UKUT 64 (AAC) [2017] UKUT 64 (AAC)
[40]‘…In practice, if it is obvious from the nature of the decision being made (as it often is in relation to setting aside under rule 37(2)(c), …) nothing more than a finding of the relevant circumstance that applies may be needed. It will generally be obvious that a party who has not been able to attend a hearing for a legitimate reason will have lost his opportunity to put his case, test the evidence of the other party and make his submissions to the judge. That party will, at least on the face of it, not have had a fair hearing. In a great many of these cases, the interests of justice will favour setting the decision aside. In cases under rule 37(2)(a) and (b) (missing documents) and 37(2)(d) (unspecified procedural irregularity, it may be sufficient for the judge to highlight the materiality (or lack of it) of the document or asserted procedural irregularity to the SL v SSWP (IS) and SL v Carlisle City Council (HB) [2017] UKUT 0064 (AAC) decision making process. The reasons may not need to do more than say so briefly, as long as they make the material point. 34 In the application before me, the decision notice on setting aside (i) (a) identifies the missing item of evidence as the video of the bowling incident; (b) summarises the representative’s argument on its significant to the appellant’s case; and (c) explains that there was a wealth of other evidence that satisfactorily established the Secretary of State’s case so that the bowling incident video would not have made a difference; and (ii) addresses the repetition of the allegation of tampering with the evidence that was resoundingly rejected before. It is very difficult to see what else needed to be said. The submission of late evidence 35 I have taken the view that the appellant's representative wishes me to rule on whether late evidence in the form of the bowling incident video should be admitted. It follows from what I have said above that it could not possibly make a difference and should not lead to the reopening of the case. (Signed on original) S M Lane Judge of the Upper Tribunal (Dated) 09 February 2017