What power does a first tier tribunal have to compel testimony?

Question

Bob brings an application in a first tier tribunal (property chamber). He is asked a question during the hearing pursuant to his witness statement which he feels is irrelevant to the proceedings. Perhaps this question is asked by the tribunal judge, or perhaps by his opponent’s litigant, On cross examination. Is Bob obligated to answer any question that is asked of him? If he declines any question with no comment, the perhaps inferences may be drawn against him or his testimony if it is reasonable to do so, but can he be sanctioned for declining to give comment on a particular question in itself?

Or, perhaps the question is not asked of Bob the applicant, but of will the witness. Where does will now stand?

Answer 1

They can throw you in jail until you do answer

This is true of all courts and parliamentary committees. An administrative tribunal may need to refer the issue to a court to get a detention order.

The witness does not get to decide which questions they will answer and which they won’t, the court/committee/tribunal does.

If the answer might incriminate you in an unresolved criminal matter (i.e. one where you have not already been convicted or acquitted) then you can state that and you might be excused answering. This does not have to be the matter presently on trial. In the USA this right is absolute: you may be offered immunity to waive this right but the choice is yours. In most other jurisdictions, a judge can give you immunity and then compel an answer. In some forums, usually anti-corruption tribunals, you can be compelled to answer without immunity but your testimony is inadmissible in court.