Original FTT judge issues directions following UT set aside and ordering of a differently constituted tribunal

Never come across this situation before and checking my thinking is right.
I’ve been asked about a client who had their FTT PIP appeal decision set aside by a judge UT who directed a rehearing by a differently constituted FTT.
The UT didn’t direct the client to provide the next tribunal with employment information or that the next tribunal must make findings of fact about the client’s employment.
However, the original FTT judge then issued a direction that the Tribunal be provided with a copy of the client’s employment contract and sick leave record for a period.
The rep then responded that the client could not provide these as they had not kept the paperwork.
The employer has ceased trading.
The FTT judge has now issued a further direction notice from the first tier judge stating the response doesn’t meet requirements and there has been ample opportunity to seek the information.
I’m guessing, but it may be the FTT judge formed a negative view of the client’s PIP entitlement due to their employment.
And wants to ensure the new tribunal focuses on this.
Regs 5, 6, and 15 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 all refer to the power of “the Tribunal” being able to issue directions.
But surely the UT ruling means the original FTT tribunal no longer exists in this respect?
Am I right in thinking that the post-UT directions have no validity and should not be included in a new appeal bundle?
Is it better to contact the tribunal clerk first about this rather than consider making a complaint?
Thanks for any help anyone can be.

“The Tribunal” in the context of the procedural rules just refers to any constitution of the FtT which might be allowed under the practice statement/direction. Case management directions can be made by a single judge. There is no inherent reason why a judge whose decision was previously set aside couldn’t later give case management directions in the same case, although you would need to consider what the UT had specifically directed. If they have made a standard direction in terms that the case should be reconsidered afresh at a hearing before a differently constituted FtT, that direction isn’t breached by the same judge giving CMDs. If the direction were to exclude all members of the previous FtT from any involvement at all in the case, the position would perhaps differ.  Compare the UT’s direction points 1 and 2 in PD v SSWP (PIP) [2021] UKUT 172 (AAC).

I think really the point you are making is a more general one that there is something rather inappropriate about a judge, having had a decision they were party to set aside, giving the impression that they might be seeking to influence the new FtT in a direction which supports that earlier decision. I think it is fairly plain that the directions making process does not exist for that purpose.

You could ask that the direction is varied or set aside. You might suggest that this should be looked at by another judge (you might ask that it be looked at by the Regional Tribunal Judge). In theory you could appeal against it (although appeals against case management directions are greatly discouraged). I think that you have to weigh the benefits of doing so against the fact that this will serve to draw further attention to the issue. Certainly you get judges who have particular hobby horses and will make directions on certain points only to find that the FtT which actually decides the case completely ignores these points. And you can always appeal to the UT again if the FtT does place inappropriate weight on the original judge’s views.

Not to disagree with anything that Elliot is saying, but…..

My approach would, at this stage, to simply be a practical/tactical one. I’d respond to the latest directions, very firmly but politely saying;

1. The appellant himself cannot remember and has not kept a record. If the FTT that hears and decides the appeal considers the matter of the appellant’s employment and sick absences relevant to the determination of the appeal, that is a matter for that tribunal. The appellant will answer any questions the FTT has on these matters to the best of his ability. If that FTT thinks the appellant’s inability to provide records somehow goes to the appellant’s credibility, that is also a matter for that tribunal.

2. The employer has ceased trading (definitely provide evidence of this) and so cannot be approached by the appellant to provide the evidence.

And that is it.

I might pursue a complaint, or ask for the directions to be varied or set aside if I had the time.  But probably not at the expense of ensuring the new hearing goes ahead and isn’t delayed.

Ultimately, the main concern is that the FTT’s decision, when it comes, is not tainted by any prejudices that the judge now giving directions about the employment may have. You’re not going to know whether or not that’s the case until you get the decision - it is entirely conceivable that the employment will be a complete non-issue for tribunal that does decide the appeal. But if it turns out its decision is in some way tainted by the judge’s directions, that can be dealt with once it has arisen…..

Thanks Elliot and past caring.
Really helpful and useful advice.