Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
      The judge at the First-tier Tribunal hearing proceeded in the absence of any representative for the Entry Clearance Officer. At [6], the judge wrote:
the hearing because of illness. There was no application to adjourn the hearing as a
consequence. I considered it to be in the interests of justice to hear the appeal in the
      At the initial hearing, Ms Gilmour for the Entry Clearance Officer submitted that the judge failed to ensure that a fair hearing of the appeal. The judge has given no reasons for proceeding with the hearing in the absence of a presenting officer. This was not a case where the hearing would in any event have proceeded because the respondent had chosen not to provide a presenting officer; a presenting officer had been assigned to the hearing but had failed to attend because of illness.
      There is no merit in the assertion in the grounds that the judge erred by stating at [8] that the parties 'agreed' the issues in the appeal when there was no presenting officer at court to make such an agreement. The judge's use of words is clumsy but it is clear that he sought only to record (accurately as it turns out) that the only issue before the Tribunal was that of sole responsibility.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.