Commentary on provisions of the Act Section 51: Finality of certain decisions by the Upper Tribunal
Subsection (2) makes certain decisions of the Upper Tribunal final and stipulates that they are not subject to review by any other court. The relevant decisions are those in relation to applications:
	for permission to appeal against the refusal of a suspensive claim which has been declared clearly unfounded;
for a declaration that there were compelling reasons for the claimant to have not made a suspensive claim within the claim period; and
for a determination that there were compelling reasons for the claimant to have not provided details of a new matter to the Secretary of State before the end of the claim period.
	Subsection (3) further clarifies the extent of the rule. Subsection (3)(a) provides that, if the Upper Tribunal were to make an error in reaching its decision on permission (or leave) to appeal or the granting of a declaration, this does not mean that the Upper Tribunal has acted beyond its powers. Such decisions will therefore still be caught by the rule. Subsection (3)(b) emphasises the effect of subsection (2) in preventing the making of an application to a court of supervisory jurisdiction (as defined in subsection (5)) about the decision, as the jurisdiction of that court does not extend to these decisions.
	Subsection (4) provides for specific exceptions to subsections (2) and (3), that is, certain circumstances where a challenge can still be brought against decisions of the Upper Tribunal on applications for permission (or leave) to appeal. This includes where the Upper Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, whether because it did not have before it a valid application under section 45(2) or 46(4) (subsection (4)(a)), or because the Tribunal itself was not properly constituted or to carry out its task (subsection (4)(b)). Subsection (4)(c) covers circumstances where the Upper Tribunal acted in bad faith or in such procedurally defective ways as amounts to fundamental breaches of the principles of natural justice. Fundamental breaches of the principles of natural justice include such things as the decision being affected by bias or corruption. All these scenarios would be very unlikely to arise, but it is important to ensure that such decisions would still be subject to review.
	Subsection (5) defines "decisions" as including "purported decisions’"; this means that even decisions which might otherwise be regarded as a nullity, are caught by the limitation on judicial review.