PAA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, a First-tier Tribunal may give its decision orally at a hearing. That oral decision is effective when given and is not provisional pending written reasons.

A tribunal which has orally disposed of an appeal has no power later to issue an inconsistent decision. If inconsistent oral and written decisions are issued, each stands unless set aside on appeal, but neither may be enforced while the conflict remains unresolved. Time for an onward appeal runs from provision of the written reasons, even where those reasons are inconsistent with the oral decision.

PAA, an Iraqi unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, appealed against a First-tier Tribunal document dated 21 June 2018 which dismissed his appeal against refusal of refugee and humanitarian-protection claims.

At the hearing on 23 May 2018, the judge had orally stated that the appeal would be allowed. Contemporaneous notes from those present supported that account. The later written decision instead purported to dismiss the appeal. The central issue was the legal effect of the oral decision and the inconsistent written decision.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal judge orally allowed the appeal at the hearing on 23 May 2018. On the evidence, his words were plainly intended to be his decision and were not a mere indication of a future outcome.
2. By Rule 29(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, the First-tier Tribunal could give that decision orally. Applying Patel v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1175, an oral decision under a rule in those terms takes effect when uttered. Written notice and written reasons are not conditions for perfecting it.
3. Once the judge had orally allowed the appeal, he was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to give a further decision dismissing it. The later written document nevertheless purported on its face to be a Tribunal decision and was capable of challenge by appeal under section 11(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
4. Where oral and written decisions conflict, neither party may enforce the decision favourable to it until an appellate court resolves the conflict. The written reasons may reveal grounds of challenge, but are not themselves dispositive.
5. The time limit for seeking permission to appeal ran from provision of the written reasons under Rule 33(2) and (3), notwithstanding that the reasons supported dismissal rather than the oral decision allowing the appeal. The Secretary of State neither appealed in time nor sought an extension.
6. Under section 12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal set aside the later decision dismissing the appeal and remade it to declare that there was no jurisdiction to make a second inconsistent decision. The oral decision allowing the appeal therefore stood.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Allowed the appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's later written dismissal and held that the oral decision allowing the appeal remained effective.
• First-tier Tribunal: At the hearing on 23 May 2018 orally allowed the appellant's asylum and humanitarian-protection appeal, but subsequently issued a written decision dated 21 June 2018 purporting to dismiss it.