- Posts: 24
× Members
"set aside" vs adjournment
- Nervy
- Topic Author
13 years 3 months ago #64882 by Nervy
"set aside" vs adjournment was created by Nervy
I've done quite a bit of a search on this but can't figure out the difference between "set aside" and adjournment or ajourn.
Don't they both just mean delay?
Don't they both just mean delay?
The topic has been locked.
- pete17971
13 years 3 months ago - 13 years 3 months ago #64884 by pete17971
Replied by pete17971 on topic Re:
Nervy wrote:
Hi,
To simplify I will try to give you a couple of examples.
An adjournment is where proceedings are stopped/put on hold before a decision is reached. It is often pending something else happening. For example a tribunal is adjourned pending the appellant having a medical in order to help the panel reach a decision. The proceedings are then resumed after this medical has occurred and (hopefully) the tribunal would then make a judgement on the claim.
A set aside is where, for example,after a decision is made a higher tribunal rebuts the decision of the lower tribunal and sends the case back to the lower tribunal.
For example, a decision has been reached at a first tier tribunal, however the appellant appeals to the Upper Tribunal e.g. on a 'point of law'. After looking into the case the Upper Tier Tribunal Judge agrees there was an error in law, so 'sets aside' the decision of the first Tier Tribunal and the case is sent back to the first Tier Tribunal. Another first tier tribunal is then held taking into account the information from the Upper Tier Tribunal.
Pete
I've done quite a bit of a search on this but can't figure out the difference between "set aside" and adjournment or adjourn.
Don't they both just mean delay?
Hi,
To simplify I will try to give you a couple of examples.
An adjournment is where proceedings are stopped/put on hold before a decision is reached. It is often pending something else happening. For example a tribunal is adjourned pending the appellant having a medical in order to help the panel reach a decision. The proceedings are then resumed after this medical has occurred and (hopefully) the tribunal would then make a judgement on the claim.
A set aside is where, for example,after a decision is made a higher tribunal rebuts the decision of the lower tribunal and sends the case back to the lower tribunal.
For example, a decision has been reached at a first tier tribunal, however the appellant appeals to the Upper Tribunal e.g. on a 'point of law'. After looking into the case the Upper Tier Tribunal Judge agrees there was an error in law, so 'sets aside' the decision of the first Tier Tribunal and the case is sent back to the first Tier Tribunal. Another first tier tribunal is then held taking into account the information from the Upper Tier Tribunal.
Pete
Last edit: 13 years 3 months ago by pete17971. Reason: spelling
The topic has been locked.
- Adrianmidwales
- Offline
Less More
13 years 3 months ago #64885 by Adrianmidwales
Replied by Adrianmidwales on topic Re:"set aside" vs adjournment
I was due to go to a tribunal for a DLA claim when I was informed by my adviser that I would be better of reapplying as my new evidence was dated past the date of my initial claim.
I informed the Tribunal service but in the morning of my case the clerk phoned to ask where I was and I explained to him it should have been cancelled.
Even after this the case went ahead and found against me in my absence.
I wrote to the TS again and the verdict was set aside and the case closed so on my record it shows that the tribunal was cancelled instead of lost ( after this I actually won my claim on resubmission instead of having to appeal).
I informed the Tribunal service but in the morning of my case the clerk phoned to ask where I was and I explained to him it should have been cancelled.
Even after this the case went ahead and found against me in my absence.
I wrote to the TS again and the verdict was set aside and the case closed so on my record it shows that the tribunal was cancelled instead of lost ( after this I actually won my claim on resubmission instead of having to appeal).
The topic has been locked.
- Doris
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 297
13 years 3 months ago #64889 by Doris
Replied by Doris on topic Re:
Adrianmidwales wrote:
If I read this right, you supllied evidence dated after you made your claim ?
If so, there is nothing wrong with that. When a DM rejects a claim, its natural to seek supporting evidience to A: Help change the DM's mind or B)For a tribunal.
I was informed by my adviser that I would be better of reapplying as my new evidence was dated past the date of my initial claim.
.
If I read this right, you supllied evidence dated after you made your claim ?
If so, there is nothing wrong with that. When a DM rejects a claim, its natural to seek supporting evidience to A: Help change the DM's mind or B)For a tribunal.
The topic has been locked.
- Nervy
- Topic Author
13 years 3 months ago #65007 by Nervy
Replied by Nervy on topic Re:
Doris wrote:
Does reapplying mean the same as a supersession?
...and would the advisor have been wrong about reapplying?
Adrianmidwales wrote:
I was informed by my adviser that I would be better of reapplying as my new evidence was dated past the date of my initial claim.
.
If I read this right, you supllied evidence dated after you made your claim ?
If so, there is nothing wrong with that. When a DM rejects a claim, its natural to seek supporting evidience to A: Help change the DM's mind or B)For a tribunal.
Does reapplying mean the same as a supersession?
...and would the advisor have been wrong about reapplying?
The topic has been locked.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51288
13 years 3 months ago #65008 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic Re:
Nervy wrote:
A Supersession is a re-evaluation of your claim, usually as the result of a Change of Circumstances.
If the evidence you are submitting relates to your condition as some time after the Decision you are appealing then it cannot be considered by a Tribunal, so it would be of no value with regard to your appeal.
If your advisor, and more imprtantly you, believe it significant enough to affect your claim, then making a new claim would seem logical. This is of course a decision you must make yourself as having no knowledge of your claim or the evidence, we cannot advise you.
Gordon
Re-applying means making a new claim for a benefit.Does reapplying mean the same as a supersession?
...and would the advisor have been wrong about reapplying?
A Supersession is a re-evaluation of your claim, usually as the result of a Change of Circumstances.
If the evidence you are submitting relates to your condition as some time after the Decision you are appealing then it cannot be considered by a Tribunal, so it would be of no value with regard to your appeal.
If your advisor, and more imprtantly you, believe it significant enough to affect your claim, then making a new claim would seem logical. This is of course a decision you must make yourself as having no knowledge of your claim or the evidence, we cannot advise you.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The topic has been locked.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David