The Act confers an obligation upon the Tribunal to hold an oral hearing
Section 27 of the Act confers an obligation upon the Tribunal to hold an oral hearing in Saga’s presence, and only permits a deviation from the procedure if ‘this does not prejudice [her] reasonable opportunity…to present [her] case in the circumstances.’ This language is further reinforced by the declaration that the Act will ‘adopt procedures which are…fair, just, economical, informal and quick’. Given the Act has been partially designed ‘[t]o provide young Australians with the opportunity to gain experience and skills’, to strip such an opportunity from an intern in the absence of an oral hearing would appear antithetical to the ‘scope and objects of the Act as a whole.’
Sample Solution
Section 27 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 confers a clear obligation upon Tribunals to hold an oral hearing in situations such as SAGA v The Chief Constable of Essex Police (2018), with any deviation from this procedure only permissible if it does not ‘prejudice [the appellant’s] reasonable opportunity…to present [their] case in the circumstances.’ This idea is then further reinforced by the declaration within the Act that its proceedings will be conducted according to principles which include being ‘fair, just, economical, informal and quick.’ It is therefore important for tribunal members to keep these considerations firmly in mind when determining whether or not an oral hearing should take place
Moreover, given that part of the purpose behind enacting this legislation was also “To provide young Australians with the opportunity to gain experience and skills” (Department Of Prime Minister & Cabinet 2008); To deny Saga her right to properly present her case through an oral hearing could potentially be seen as going against the spirit of what is intended by this Act – especially since she has already taken considerable steps towards pursuing justice via legal channels. Additionally, such a decision would also have other implications on those seeking redress through similar channels as they may now feel less confident knowing they are unable to exercise their right at having their cases heard fully before tribunals.
In conclusion, although there are two sides presented in SAGA v The Chief Constable of Essex Police ultimately UK law requires consideration for both whenever possible so as ensure all parties are given procedural fairness thus allowing Tribunal reach accurate decisions based off undisputed facts rather than merely partial information stripped away context which leads errors.
