When a hearing is continued, who must tell the parties when and where the next hearing will be, and in what form may that notice be given?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In practice material of this kind, we check the written notice of the next hearing's date and place, any proof that it was served on the parties, any consent on file allowing notice by electronic document, and the attendance list showing who was present when the hearing presiding officer spoke the notice.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the paragraph at face value: where a hearing is continued, it is the administrative agency that must notify the parties and others of the date and place of the next hearing in writing, and notice by electronic document is permitted only where the parties and others consent to it.
Another reading notes the proviso: for a party or other person who attended the hearing, the hearing presiding officer may give the notice orally on that hearing day, so where the presiding officer gives that notice orally on that hearing day, the written-notice duty does not reach parties and others who attended the hearing.
Your judgment
How could the file show that a further sitting is a continuation of the same hearing rather than a new hearing that the provision does not reach?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to change who must give notice or the forms of notice allowed, or if a decision explains when a further sitting counts as a continuation and what period notice must allow.