Ms Sinéad Lucey:

We believe there should probably be a flexible approach. If a delay was very straightforward, such as that a case was heard on a particular date and it took three years to get the judgment there probably will not be a huge complex need to have somebody examine it and provide oral evidence. However, in a long protracted case with many loops, a delay would need to be explained. It could be unclear how the impact on the person could be understood purely on a paper basis without the opportunity to present direct evidence to an assessor as to what the impact has been and the importance of the case to the person on a personal basis. It could also be on a commercial basis. Oral evidence does have a value in this regard and to exclude it totally would seem to be incorrect. There may be cases that can be perfectly decided on paper without any particular difficulty. Both approaches are possible but we need to keep the opportunity for oral input into any hearing or determination.