N1: Form and format of hearing
Form of hearing
“(3)…the Tribunal may by direction –
(g) decide the form of any hearing;” (FTT Rules, r.5(3)(g)).
" Mr Burgess was treated as making another application for postponement of the hearing, saying that he was unfairly being forced to have a video hearing;
 We refused this application for the following reasons.
 We had regard to the guidance in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, Appendix E dealing with remote hearings with particular consideration of the fact that Mr Burgess was effectively a litigant in person.
 In this case there was no reasonable expectation of when Mr Burgess could attend a hearing in person. Mr Burgess had said his mother needed support for six months in November 2020. Consequently the hearing was adjourned in November 2020 until a date after the period of six months to allow for that support. Now, eight months later, he was saying she needed support for a further two months. In addition, travel restrictions including the Covid “red list”, which imposed expensive hotel quarantine requirements for travel from South Africa, meant that as Mr Burgess acknowledged, he was unable to travel back to the UK without unacceptable costs. The use of the video platform hearing was therefore particularly appropriate in this case.
 The overriding objective set out in Rule 2 of the First-Tier Tribunal Procedural Rules must be given paramount consideration when deciding any application. Given the circumstances of Mr Burgess and the background to this case involving protracted litigation over many years we were satisfied that it was the interests of justice and fairness (which must consider the position of both parties to the litigation) to proceed as arranged by way of the video platform." (Tradestar International Limited v. HMRC  UKFTT 8 (TC), Judge Bowler)
Switching from video to in-person hearing
Due to unreliable broadband
" The case was listed for a one day hearing by video to begin at 10am on 27 June 2022. Ms Bartram had previously confirmed in writing that she had “a reliable broadband connection and the ability to access the electronic bundle while simultaneously attending the hearing by video”.
 Soon after those exchanges, Ms Bartram lost her internet connection to the hearing. There were several reconnection attempts, and she finally re-joined by phone. She told the Tribunal she lived in a remote part of the country with unreliable broadband and would prefer the hearing to be on a face-to-face basis. Taking into account in particular her connection difficulties, we decided to adjourn the hearing with directions." (ATN Marketing Limited v. HMRC  UKFTT 30 (TC), Judge Redston)
Timetable for hearing
“In view of the introduction of new evidence, however, I consider that it would be useful for the parties to agree a timetable to try to ensure that the submissions and evidence can be heard in three days. Accordingly, I direct that the parties should try to agree such a timetable appeal or should submit separate timetables to assist the Tribunal in managing the hearing.” (London Cellular Communications Ltd v. HMRC  UKFTT 272 (TC), §26).