Each to their own.
IMO, the obvious advantage to my suggested course of action is to establish the basis of their claims. If you do challenge them at the hearing, then the adjudicator might adjourn, would you want this? If you don't, then IMO you do yourself no favours.
On being asked the questions, they might choose to not contest because there is no basis for the claims, see below.
The advantages are clear, but if this is to be taken off line then we won't be able to advise at the remaining intermediate stages.
From the Tribunal's Practice Direction No. 2 of 2024:
The appellant’s representations to the Authority and their Notice of Appeal, together with the Authority’s Case Summary, will be sufficient in most cases to enable the Adjudicator to decide the matter.
c. Parties should consider, and may be asked to justify, why their case has not been contained in the Notice of Appeal or case summary respectively.
d. A Skeleton Argument or additional representations must:
- be concise
- identify the statutory ground or grounds of appeal relied upon
- clearly and briefly outline the issues with reference to the relevant ground,
- include a chronology of the facts, if it would assist the Adjudicator
- be set out in numbered paragraphs with the use of headings where appropriate
- be cross referenced to any relevant documents
- not include extensive quotations from documents or extensive repetition of the
evidence
- include a list of the relevant authorities, if any, and identify those that assist and do not assist the party’s case
-
And are the cited case numbers correct? If so, how does the authority think this bolsters their position?
