Section 5 — Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007: Judges and other members of the Upper Tribunal
Text of the provision Official document
Judges and other members of the Upper Tribunal 5 1 A person is a judge of the Upper Tribunal if the person—
a is the Senior President of Tribunals, b is a judge of the Upper Tribunal by virtue of appointment under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3, c is a transferred-in judge of the Upper Tribunal (see section 31(2)),
ca is a judge of the First-tier Tribunal, d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e is the Chief Social Security Commissioner, or any other Social Security Commissioner, appointed under section 50(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 8),
f is a Social Security Commissioner appointed under section 50(2) of that Act (deputy Commissioners),
g is within section 6(1),
h is a deputy judge of the Upper Tribunal (whether under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 or under section 31(2)), or i is a Chamber President or a Deputy Chamber President, whether of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal or of a chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, and does not fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (h).
2 A person is one of the other members of the Upper Tribunal if the person—
a is a member of the Upper Tribunal by virtue of appointment under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3, b is a transferred-in other member of the Upper Tribunal (see section 31(2)), or c is a member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal appointed under section 22(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17), . . . d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Schedule 3— contains provision for the appointment of persons to be judges (including deputy judges), or other members, of the Upper Tribunal, and makes further provision in connection with judges and other members of the Upper Tribunal.
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →