[blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal?

[Tim West-Meads]

Grattan wrote:

> +=+ The views of an appeals advisor, consultant or 'cuddly' 
> (see OB 8A2),  should not be known to the AC. Indeed, 
> there is no reason for an AC to know that any such advice 
> has been made available to the appellant. 

There is nothing in OB8a2 which *precludes* the views of an advisor from 
being made known to the AC.  While the AC is in no way bound to heed any 
such views neither are they entitled to refuse to even consider such 
views when presented as part of the evidence.

For example I might be approached by a weak pair who are unhappy with a 
ruling but can't really say why (mostly they just don't understand the 
law and I can explain why the ruling was as it was and their desire to 
appeal will go away).  But sometimes it will become clear to me that the 
TD missed a key point in making his decision (perhaps some abstruse 
inference of the opposing system of which I happen to be aware).  If the 
point is sufficiently abstruse that I believe the weak pair may be 
unable even to articulate it to an AC I will provide a written 
commentary which they can choose to present to the AC if they think it 
necessary.  The AC can, of course, investigate the evidence I have 
prepared and rule "Tim is obviously doolally and what's more he's not 
even an official advisor - it's your fault for consulting him and we 
consider the appeal frivolous".  However, if the AC actually refuses to 
consider the additional evidence *at all* the matter should be referred 
to the NA on a point of principle.

Tim