Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

New immigration tribunal procedure rules: analysis


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

The First-tier Tribunal now has a new set of procedure rules: the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, which came into force on 20 October 2014.

The Rules are streamlined in some parts and the overriding objective is modified to emphasise fairness and justice more than speed. Case management powers are stated more generally, in line with the objective of flexibility.

Appellants and their representatives should pay careful attention to the changes, especially as non-compliance can now result in a trip to the Upper Tribunal or an order for costs. Time limits have also changed.

Some of the changes will in most cases be of benefit to Appellants: the rule on adjournments is now less restrictive, Appellants have longer to appeal both to the First-tier and Upper Tribunals, and the Secretary of State is no longer necessarily able to thwart an appeal by withdrawing the decision appealed against.

A comparison table between the old and new rules is available at the end of this blog post.

Transitional provisions (Rule 46)

The transitional provisions in new Rule 46 provide that the Tribunal may apply any provisions of the old Rules to ensure proceedings are dealt with fairly, and any time period already running on 20 October shall continue to apply. It therefore appears that the starting point is that the new Rules will apply to all current proceedings, even if they got underway and had substantive hearings before 20 October 2014. This is particularly relevant for time limits to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, which are now longer.

Time limits (Rule 11, Rule 19, Rule 20)

Image credit: Dafne Cholet, on Flickr
Image credit: Dafne Cholet, on Flickr

Under the old rules, in-country appellants had to send their notice of appeal to the First—tier Tribunal no later than 10 days after being served with notice of the decision, five days if in detention. Now in new Rule 19 no distinction is drawn between appellants who are detained or at liberty and the time limit is 14 days after they are sent the notice of decision. Decisions delayed in the post may therefore result in a scramble to get a notice of appeal lodged. Bear in mind that 14 days means 14 calendar days, although if the final day is not a working day the act may be done by the end (midnight) of the next working day (new Rule 11).

Rule 11 contains no equivalent to old Rule 57 on calculation of time which states that periods of time of 10 days or less do not include non-business days.

Rule 11 contains no equivalent to old Rule 57 on calculation of time which states that periods of time of 10 days or less do not include non-business days. Parties should therefore be careful with short timeframes issued in directions and where these are being discussed in case management review hearings it may be worth highlighting to the Tribunal that this provision has changed. Simply setting a calendar date as the deadline is likely the best way to avoid accidental non-compliance.

For out-of-country Appellants, the timeframe for providing a notice of appeal remains the same as it was under old Rule 7(2).

Rule 20 contains no particular test for extension of time for filing a late notice of appeal, in old rule 10(5) the Tribunal only had the power when ‘satisfied by reason of special circumstances it would be unjust not to do so.’

The new rules do not have an equivalent to old Rule 55(5) which says that a document provided by post or DX will be deemed served two days after it is sent. In the absence of this Rule it is suggested the representatives still proceed on this basis and if necessary rely on new Rule 46(2) which allows for the application of any of the 2005 Rules where this would enable a case to be dealt with fairly.

Please see below for time limits for applications for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Evidence (Rule 5, Rule 14)

Some elements of the rules on evidence have become more flexible: the Tribunal is not inhibited from considering written evidence not filed or served in accordance with directions (old Rule 51(3)) or from considering documents not accompanied by a certified translation (old Rule 52(3)). Written evidence is not required for adjournment applications (old Rule 21(1)(c)) or applications for extensions of time for appeal (old Rule 10(1)(b)) although it is to be expected that supporting evidence would strengthen an application and should still be provided where available.

now at new Rule 14(1)(c) the tribunal can direct whether the parties are permitted or required to provide expert evidence

The rules previously did not contain any express provision on expert evidence; now at new Rule 14(1)(c) the tribunal can direct whether the parties are permitted or required to provide expert evidence. It would be interesting to conceive of situations where the Secretary of State may be required to provide expert evidence. New Rule 5 introduces a specific provision for parties to apply for directions., It is particularly worth noting that this can be done in writing, which might be worthwhile in advance of CMRHs, especially where it is a complex request.

Summoning witnesses (Rule 15)

The power to summon witnesses, now in new Rule 15, is wider than that in old Rule 50 which allowed the Tribunal to summon a witness to attend an appeal. New Rule 15 uses the word hearing which means that a witness could, for example, be summoned to a bail application. This could be very useful for bail applicants in cases where their applications are being frustrated by inaction on the part of the Probation Service or the UKVI section 4 bail team.

Response: bundle and statements of opposition (Rule 23, Rule 24)

Old Rule 13 (the Respondent’s bundle) is largely preserved but split into two rules found at Rules 23 and 24.

New Rule 23 relates specifically to entry clearance and EEA family permit appeals and adds a requirement for a statement of whether the Respondent opposes the Appellant’s case and if so for what reason. Respondent’s bundles now must be sent within 28 days of receipt of the notice of appeal, apparently whether or not the notice was in time.

This is interesting as it might prevent, as a matter of procedural fairness, the SSHD from seeking to rely on additional reasons at a hearing

New Rule 24(2) requires the Respondent, if intending to change or add to the grounds or reasons relied upon in the notice of decision or other documents served under Rule 24(1)(a), to provide a statement of whether the respondent opposes the appellant’s case and the grounds for such opposition. This is interesting as it might prevent, as a matter of procedural fairness, the SSHD from seeking to rely on additional reasons at a hearing, e.g. by going fishing into credibility issues not already put in dispute by the refusal letter, unless they have filed a statement under new Rule 24(2)). Appellants are therefore advised to particularise their grounds of appeal as much as possible, because the more notice the Appellant can say the Respondent has had as to what the Appellant’s case is, the better. The Respondent is unlikely, given resource limitations, to provide any statements under new Rules 23 or 24 and the Appellant can then object to them raising extra stuff at the hearing.

Withdrawals (Rule 17) 

One of the most positive changes in the procedure rules appears in new Rule 17. Previously, an appeal had to be treated as withdrawn if the Secretary of State notified the Tribunal that the relevant decision had been withdrawn. This was open to abuse and judicial review claims had been launched in cases where decisions were repeatedly withdrawn on the day of the hearing, with no explanation and no substantial difference when re-made. Now the Secretary of State must provide reasons for the withdrawal and the Tribunal may with good reason not treat the appeal as withdrawn even if the Secretary of State withdraws her decision.

Adjournments (Rule 21)


Under the 2005 Rules parties seeking an adjournment had to satisfy the test in Rule 21 to show good reason and, where an adjournment was sought to allow more time to produce evidence, that it would otherwise be ‘unjust to determine the appeal.’ This was a relatively stringent test although generally more generously applied in asylum cases following SH (Afghanistan) [2011] EWCA Civ 1284 (and recently applied in a points-based system case: Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00418 (IAC)).

Now the Tribunal is simply given the power to ‘adjourn or postpone a hearing’ under its case management powers (Rule 4(3)(h)). There is therefore no specific test for adjournments.

In its absence, the Tribunal should have regard to the overriding objective set out in Rule 2 to ‘deal with cases fairly and justly.’ This is notably different from the previous definition of ‘fairly, quickly and efficiently’ which emphasised speed. Appellants can further rely on Rule 2(2)(e) which says that dealing with a case fairly and justly includes ‘avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues’ (emphasis added). An adjournment to obtain a medical or expert report might be an example of where delay is justified to ensure proper consideration of the issues. Again, the guidance in Nwaigwe is helpful in highlighting the central question of ‘whether the refusal deprived the affected party of his right to a fair hearing.’

It is also worth noting that the requirement in Rule 21 to notify, if practicable, all other parties to an adjournment application and to produce evidence, is not replicated in the 2014 Rules. However Appellants should bear in mind that relevant evidence (e.g. of expert’s timescale) may strengthen the application.

Participation (Rule 28)

New Rule 28 allows the Tribunal to proceed with a hearing in a party’s absence if satisfied the party has been notified or reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing and it is in the interests of justice to continue.

This is broader than the old Rule 19 which, by providing specific scenarios under which proceeding would be acceptable, in fact limited this power. New Rule 28 gives the Tribunal little guidance on what interests of justice might merit the continuation of an appeal when there is no indication of what might have happened to the missing party.

Written determinations (Rule 29)


New Rule 29 makes a major change to Tribunal practice in removing the requirement in old Rule 22 that the Tribunal must provide a reasoned written determination in every case. Now that requirement only applies to a protection claim (which does not include human rights claims such as Article 8 claims), although parties may request a written statement of reasons. Appellants should be alert to the fact they only have 28 days following the dispatch or provision of the notice of decision to do so.

The 10-day turnaround requirement is replaced with ‘as soon as reasonably practicable.’ It will be interesting to see how many First-tier Tribunal judges, unused to providing oral decisions at the hearing, will take up the opportunity to do so.

Appeals to the Upper Tribunal (Rule 33, Rule 34, Rule 36)

The party now has 14 (calendar) days after receiving written reasons for the decision.

The major change in appeals to the Upper Tribunal is an increase in the time provided, in new Rule 33. The party now has 14 (calendar) days after receiving written reasons for the decision. This means where decisions are given orally or otherwise without reasons time does not start to run until after written reasons have been applied for and provided.

Applications for extension of time may be more readily granted as the Tribunal no longer has to be satisfied ‘by reasons of special circumstances it would be unjust not to do so’ (old Rule 24(4)(a)). The Tribunal itself has more time to provide a response to the application for permission in that it is no longer bound by 10 working days but by the more generous ‘as soon as is practicable’ (new Rule 34).

The Tribunal has a new power in Rule 36 to ‘treat an application for a decision to be corrected, set aside or reviewed, or for permission to appeal against a decision, as an application for any other one of those things.’

By new Rule 34(3) the Tribunal must send a record of its decision to the parties as soon as practicable. There is no equivalent of old Rule 27 which in asylum cases required the tribunal to send its decision first to the Secretary of State who would then have 28 days to serve it upon the Appellant.

Bail hearings (Part 5)

The most striking change to the rules on bail, in Part 5 of the new Rules, is that bail applications are no longer limited to applications for release but may include applications to vary conditions, continuation or forfeiture of recognizance (Rule 39(1)). Bail applications other than for release may be heard without a hearing (Rule 39(2)).

As mentioned above, it should also now be possible to summon witnesses to bail hearings.

Transparency (Rule 13, Rule 27)

top secret stampTwo of the new rules affect the transparency of the tribunal. New Rule 27 on public and private hearings allows the Tribunal to give a direction that a hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private. No further indication of when this might be appropriate is provided, in contrast with old rule 54 which limited the Tribunal to exclude the public if necessary in the interests of public order or national security, to protect the private life of a party or the interests of a minor, or, in exceptional circumstances, to ensure that publicity does not prejudice the interests of justice – but only if and to the extent that it is strictly necessary to do so.

New Rule 13 is an entirely new rule giving the tribunal power to prohibit the disclosure or publication of specified documents or information relating to the proceedings, or an matter likely to lead members of the public to identify any person whom the Tribunal considers should not be identified. The Rule appears to envisage its relevance in cases where serious harm could result from disclosure, or in cases of national security, but could potentially have much wider application given the Tribunal’s general discretion in Rule 13(1) to prohibit disclosure or publication is not limited by any particular or mandatory considerations.

While possibly protecting vulnerable appellants, this may cause other appellants such as those whose cases involve national security elements, or who wish to make use of the Protocol on communications between judges of the Family Court and Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal.

Failures to comply: requiring attendance or production of documents (Rule 6)

The new Rule 6(3) introduces (with some problematic syntax) a procedure whereby the First-tier Tribunal may refer failures to comply with a requirement imposed by the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal who may then may take a variety of actions including requiring that person to attend to give evidence. This is something for representatives to watch out for – if it appears that there will be problem with compliance it is best, as always, to inform the Tribunal in advance.

Costs (Rule 9)

Pound Coins by William Warby
Pound Coins by William Warby

Subject of a separate Free Movement post, the introduction of a provision for the Tribunal to make a costs order for wasted costs or where a party has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings. There is no provision equivalent to that in the employment tribunal procedure rules allowing the Tribunal to consider the party’s ability to pay when considering making an order, although representatives should urge this point on the Tribunal if necessary.

Comparison table

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014
Rule 1: Citation and commencementRule 1: Citation, commencement, application and interpretation
Rule 2: InterpretationRule 1: Citation, commencement, application and interpretationRule 30: Interpretation
Rule 3: Scope of these RulesRule 1: Citation, commencement, application and interpretation
Rule 4: Overriding objectiveRule 2: Overriding objective and parties’ obligation to co-operate with the Tribunal
Rule 5: Scope of this partNo equivalent
Rule 6: Giving notice of appealRule 19: Notice of appeal
Rule 7: Time limit for appealRule 19: Notice of appeal
Rule 8: Form and contents of notice of appealRule 19: Notice of appeal
Rule 9: Where the Tribunal may not accept a notice of appealRule 22: Circumstances in which the Tribunal may not accept a notice of appeal
Rule 10: Late notice of appealRule 20: Late notice of appeal
Rule 11: Special provisions for imminent removal casesRule 21: Special provision for imminent removal cases (late notice of appeal)
Rule 12: Service of notice of appeal on respondentRule 19: Notice of appeal
Rule 13: Filing of documents by respondentRule 23: Response: entry clearance casesRule 24: Response: other cases
Rule 14: Variation of grounds of appealRule 19: Notice of appeal
Rule 15: Method of determining appealRule 25: Consideration of decision with or without a hearing
Rule 16: Certification of pending appealRule 18: Certification of pending appeal
Rule 17: Withdrawal of appealRule 17: Withdrawal
Rule 17A: Striking out of an appeal for non-payment of feeRule 7: Striking out of an appeal for non-payment of fee and reinstatement
Rule 17B: Reinstatement of an appeal struck out for non-payment of feeRule 7: Striking out of an appeal for non-payment of fee and reinstatement
Rule 18: Abandonment of appealRule 16: Appeal treated as abandoned or finally determined
Rule 19: Hearing appeal in absence of a partyRule 28: Hearing in a party’s absence
Rule 20: Hearing two or more appeals togetherRule 4: Case management powers
Rule 21: Adjournment of appealsRule 4: Case management powers
Rule 22: Giving of determinationRule 29: Decision and notice of decisions
Rule 23: Special procedures and time limits in asylum appealsRule 29: Decision and notice of decisions
Rule 23A: CostsRule 9: Orders for payment of costs and interest on costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)
Rule 24: Application for permission to appeal to the Upper TribunalRule 33: Application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal
Rule 25: Tribunal’s consideration of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper TribunalRule 34: Tribunal’s consideration of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal
Rule 26: Review of a decisionRule 35: Review of a decision
Rule 27: Special procedure for providing notice of decision relating to an asylum caseNo equivalent (see new Rule 34(3))
Rule 37:  Scope of this Part [Bail] and interpretationRule 36: Scope of this part [bail] and reconsideration
Rule 38: Applications for bailRule 38: Bail applications
Rule 39;  Bail hearingRule 38: Bail applicationsRule 39: Bail hearingsRule 40: Response to a bail applicationRule 41: Decision in bail proceedings
Rule 40: RecognizancesRule 42: Recognizances
Rule 41: Release of applicantRule 43: Release of bail party
Rule 42:  Application of this Part to ScotlandRule 44: Application of this part to Scotland
Rule 43: Conduct of appeals and applicationsRule 3: Delegation to staff
Rule 45: DirectionsRule 4: Case management powersRule 5: Procedure for applying for and giving directionsRule 14: Evidence and submissions
Rule 46: Notification of hearingsRule 26: Notice of hearings
Rule 47: AdjournmentRule 4: Case management powers
Rule 48: RepresentationRule 10: Representatives
Rule 49: United Kingdom RepresentativeRule 8: Substitution and addition of parties
Rule 49A: InterpretersNo equivalent
Rule 50: Summoning of witnessesRule 15: Summoning or citation of witnesses and orders to answer questions or produce documents
Rule 51: EvidenceRule 14: Evidence and submissionsRule 15: Summoning or citation of witnesses and orders to answer questions or produce documents
Rule 52: Language of documentsRule 12: Sending, delivery and language of documents
Rule 53: Burden of proofNo equivalent
Rule 54: Admission of public to hearingsRule 27: public and private hearing
Rule 55: Filing and service of documentsRule 12: Sending, delivery and language of documents
Rule 56: Address for serviceRule 12: Sending, delivery and language of documents
Rule 57: Calculation of timeRule 11: Calculating time
Rule 58: Signature of documentsNo equivalent
Rule 59: Errors of ProcedureRule 6: Failure to comply with rules etc
Rule 60: Correction of orders and determinationsRule 31: Clerical mistakes and accidental slips or omissionsRule 32: Setting aside a decision which disposes of proceedings


Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Natalie Wilkins

Natalie Wilkins

Natalie Wilkins is a barrister at Garden Court North Chambers. She represents appellants in the First-tier and Upper Tribunals in all areas of asylum and immigration law, including nationality and EEA law and in judicial reviews and injunctions for detained and other clients. Natalie has a strong interest in immigration cases where there are family law issues and can represent clients in both sets of proceedings.


4 Responses

  1. “The major change in appeals to the Upper Tribunal is an increase in the time provided, in new Rule 33. The party now has 14 (calendar) days after receiving written reasons for the decision.”

    Not sure that this is necessarily correct. Rule 33 actually says “no later than 14 days after the date on which the party making the application was provided with written reasons for the decision.” Provided does not necessarily mean received. A letter to ILPA from the TPC states “the TPC uses “provided” to refer to the whole process by which a document is transferred from one person to another (whether by post or personal service)”. So does time run from the beginning of ‘the whole process’ [e.g. when sent] or the end of ‘the whole process’ [e.g. when received]?

    More confusion I believe – it will be interesting to see what clarification there is on this issue but I would be cautious and count the 14 days from the date sent & not received.

  2. Hi Chris,

    Yes I was actually going to edit the post to change this but have not been able to yet! It is of course correct that “after receiving” should say “was provided with written reasons.” Provided is defined in new Rule 12 as including being (a) delivered, or sent by post, to an address; or (b) sent via a document exchange to a document exchange number or address. As mentioned under the subheading Time Limits there is no equivalent to old Rule 55(5) about deemed service (which was two days after the letter is sent, which can be of course disproved by evidence to the contrary), and the old Rule 24 timeframe started running from when the party is deemed to have been served, which was a lot clearer.

    Provided is certainly a slightly tricky word to interpret but if its basic meaning is ‘made available’ you could argue that must mean it is (deemed) in the hand of the Appellant – it is not available if it’s in a Royal Mail sorting office!

    Other definitions of the word ‘provided’ in new Rule 12 involve instantaneous transmission. ‘Delivered’, as an alternative to ‘sent by post,’ would also involve it having reached its destination. To count time from when written reasons are sent by post would therefore create unfairness. An Appellant being sent written reasons by email, for example, would have more time to prepare their grounds, for no reason other than the mode of transmission selected.

    Given the above and the fact that time under the old rules from specifically ran from date of deemed service which is also the approach of the CPR (Rule 6.26) I think it would be most likely to be interpreted by the Tribunal in that way, bearing in mind also the overriding objective. But yes, it does just create confusion and you may want to exercise caution until there is some clarification. It might be worth sounding some judges out in the meantime!

    I should note that arguments relying on new Rule 46(2) will only work for proceedings that were begun before 20 October 2014.

    1. In the TPC’s response to the consultation on the new Rules, they state the following:

      35. One respondent noted that the use of ‘provided’ in the context of time-limits might be misleading.

      36. The TPC agreed that, often, ‘provided’ was not the most appropriate word. Generally, within the Principal Rules it has been replaced with more appropriate language, such as ‘sent’.

      To me this just adds to the confusion because the ‘Principal Rules’ do still use the term ‘provided’ rather than ‘sent’ and thus there is still room for confusion.

  3. Yes it’s not precise enough. The lack of a deemed service provision or other clearer definition is a major omission.

    Interesting comparison is with the Upper Tribunal Rules – Rule 44 (Application for Permission to Appeal)

    [(3A) An application under paragraph (1) in respect of a decision in an asylum case or an immigration case must be sent or delivered to the Upper Tribunal so that it is received within the appropriate period after the Upper Tribunal or, as the case may be in an asylum case, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, sent any of the documents in paragraph (3) to the party making the application.
    (3B) The appropriate period referred to in paragraph (3A) is as follows—
    (a) where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is in the United Kingdom at the time that the application is made—
    (i) [twelve working days]; or
    (ii) if the party making the application is in detention under the Immigration Acts, seven working days; and
    (b) where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is outside the United Kingdom at the time that the application is made, thirty eight days.
    (3C) Where a notice of decision is sent electronically or delivered personally, the time limits in paragraph (3B) are—
    (a) in sub-paragraph (a)(i), ten working days;
    (b) in sub-paragraph (a)(ii), five working days; and
    (c) in sub-paragraph (b), ten working days.]

    – 2 days more being given in non instantaneous-cases, use of the word sent.