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.
DECIDED WITHOUT A HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 34 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
      This is the re-making of the decision in the appellant's appeal following my previous error of law decision, promulgated on 6 October 2022, by which I concluded that the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law when allowing the appellant's appeal against the respondent's refusal of his EUSS application.
      This appeal has been brought under the Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals)(EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
      I intend to keep this re-making decision relatively brief. The parties will be well-aware of my error of law decision (annexed to this re-making decision), the protracted procedural history following that decision, and the various directions and further submissions provided as a consequence over the course of time.
      It is important to note that, by correspondence dated 28 November 2023, the appellant confirmed (through his legal representatives) that he did not wish to attend a further hearing and that instead his appeal should be decided "on the papers".
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.