That’s weird. I’m not allowed to edit that post.
So, It’s essentially a judge saying “I realise I have screwed up and will be taken apart at UT so…”.
Absolutely allowed to do this because you don’t start with 37. I think it’s 9(4) which allows a review on an error of law and set aside. The over-riding principles described at the start of the Tribunal Procedure rules also allow this in the interests of justice.
If a judge believes they have erred in law; sees that it will be over-turned at UT and thinks considerable time for all concerned will be saved by setting aside then the procedure rules trump all as that’s obviously the fair and just thing to do.
My only question would be whether this was a salaried or fee paid judge. Salaried can do this. Fee paid need someone else to look at it.
How much effort do you want to put into a challenge when you’re effectively getting a second bite of the cherry further down the line anyway? If your case is a winner then it will win the second time around too.
