Skip to main content

Judge Plimmer provides helpful clarification on compliance with new Practice Direction for the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Summary

Letter by President of the First-tier Tribunal addresses concerns over the Direction's provisions on medical reports

By EIN
Date of Publication:

Judge Melanie Plimmer, President of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTTIAC), has issued a letter addressing concerns raised by multiple organisations regarding the FTTIAC's new Practice Direction (PD), particularly its provisions on medical reports.

Tribunal logoA copy of the full letter is available on the ILPA members' site. Practitioners are strongly encouraged to read it, as it provides valuable insights and guidance on adhering to the new PD and ensuring compliance with its requirements.

Judge Plimmer stresses the critical importance of awareness and adherence to the PD, noting that efficient use of the Tribunal's resources, including judges' time, depends on compliance. She also made it clear that breaches of the PD will not be overlooked by the Tribunal.

The PD requires parties to identify, articulate, agree upon, and focus on the principal controversial issues, the FTTIAC President said, facilitating improved and more modern, issue-focused working practices.

While recognising the short-term challenges associated with adhering to the PD, Judge Plimmer expressed optimism that it would soon become ingrained as part of a wider cultural change within the Tribunal, leading to reduced delays and more efficient and fair decision-making. She said the PD will not be revised now, but announced the intention to review its implementation after six months, inviting further feedback at that time.

The letter acknowledges the high quality of some medical reports submitted to the Tribunal, particularly those addressing sensitive issues such as the physical and mental impact of torture and trafficking. However, Judge Plimmer expressed concerns over a growing trend of excessively lengthy expert reports that include generic material irrelevant to the individual case, obscuring critical points and increasing costs and time requirements.

Judge Plimmer stated: "It is not unusual for bundles to contain thousands of pages including very lengthy expert reports of hundreds of pages in length, yet the judge is only referred to a handful of pages or paragraphs, if any at all, in skeletons, reviews and submissions. We also continue to deal with significant non-compliance without explanation from both parties."

The new PD establishes a 20-page limit for expert reports, except where a justified application for additional length is approved. With specific regard to medical reports, Judge Plimmer said it remains the FTTIAC's current expectation that the vast majority of good quality reports can meet the necessary requirements within 20 pages.

She added: "Where it is necessary to exceed 20 pages, the PD makes express provision for an application to be made to the FTT to extend the page count. This should be short and straightforward, and should take little time to prepare. In order to make the application, a representative should outline why it is necessary, by reference to the disputed issues and any relevant guidance, for the report to exceed 20 pages. We expect these applications to be made in those cases where a lengthier report is necessary and can be justified."

The letter also clarifies that the 20-page limit relates to the expert report itself and not to CVs, appendices or references, though these should all be as concise as the disputed issues permit. In addition, the letter clarifies that reports submitted directly to the Home Office prior to the Home Office decision and included in Home Office bundles are not intended to fall within the scope of the PD, though it would be helpful if the spirit of the PD is taken into account.