This might be a daft quesion but I am stressed and confused from last minute crimbo shopping! If the chair of TS refuses to extend the time limit for applying for a SOR (i.e. application was made after more than 1 month but less than three) is this open to any form of challenge other than Judicial review?

I don't think so but you might still be able to make a late appeal to the commissioner - see R(IS)11/99. Tricky though, you'd have to be able to establish a possible error of law from the info on the decision notice alone.

Oh, and of course the time limit for requesting a copy of the record of proceedings, is six months so hopefully you're still within time for that. Might yield some useful information.

Thanks for that, good point about the ROP, msut admit I hadn't given that much thought, always worth a shot!

Have you seen CH/2553/2005?

Thanks for the CD Jim, I have looked at that now, it is an interesting decision but not very helpful to my case. Thanks anyway.

There are a couple of possible routes which might be a viable alternative to JR:

- Appeal to the Commissioners, arguing that the failure to exercise the discretion in favour of granting a statement of reasons was erroneous (in law) and that, therefore, there has been an error of law because of an (unlawful) failure to provide any written reasons. This is no more difficult than JR - the problem is showing an error of law in refusing to extend time where there is a mere discretion (ie Wednesbury unreasonableness). (NB - I have a vague memory from that case that there is a right to request written reasons for the REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME FOR WRITTEN REASONS. Request those and you might be able to show an error; eg failure to consider relevant factors, etc). See CH/2553/2005 para. 26.

- As above, but include an application that (in the alternative) the appeal be stayed and the chairman invited to consider providing a statement of written reasons on a proper basis. See CH/2553/2005 para. 27.

- It seems to me that CIS/1363/2005 would be worth a serious looking at. Is it not arguable that a refusal to extend time can be the subject of a direct appeal to the Commissioners? The legislation and that case would need careful analysis, but I think there must now be something in the point.

If you want to discuss any of this, let me know.

James