Ok, that helps greatly.
If the LA's decision is non-commercial under HBR 9(1)(a), or "contrived" under HBR 9(1)(l), the onus is very much on the LA to show it had grounds for revising / superseding.
The administrative delays are not directly relevant to the substance of the decision, although it may be open to implication the LA wasn't terribly confident of its decision.
In itself, I don't think the LA has to interview any particular party before arriving at its decision. If the LA considers it has sufficient evidence / info to give grounds for revising / superseding at any given point in time, the decision can be made.
It's a bit unclear if its a non-commercial decision, or taking advantage ("contrived"). If the latter, it doesn't necessarily need two parties to "contrive". For example, in "Baragrove", the "blame" was laid fairly and squarely at the door of the landlord. The "Baragrove" principle has been successfully argued as recently as CH/136/2007 (a case I was involved with).
As for the IUC transpcript, there are now several Cmmrs/UT decisions which make it crystal clear a LA is supposed to provide ALL relevant info/evidence and, if it doesn't, the LA shouldn't be surprised if its case falls. In particular, CH/3240/2007 may be of interest (paras 16-20).
If any of the parties scream "breach of DPA" at the hearing, there are a couple of antidotes. Firstly, s.35(2) of the DPA makes it clear data is excluded from protection where it is provided for the purpose of legal proceedings and/or exercising legal rights. Further, even if the DPA is breached, the evidence is still (normally) admissible - see CH/4970/2002. Also see CH/3026/2007 where the Cmmr strongly suggests that if a LA wishes to withold info/evidence, it should ask for a Direction.
Hope the above helps.
|