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 respondent, whom I shall call "the claimant", appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer refusing him entry clearance as a partner. Judge Hawden-Beal allowed his appeal. On application the respondent was granted permission to appeal to this Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal stands seised of that appeal.
The claimant's solicitors have written to the Tribunal narrating the grant of entry clearance to the claimant and requesting withdrawal of "Mr Gul's appeal".
The present appeal is, as noted above, by the Entry Clearance Officer. As the claimant's solicitors must know, the provisions of rule 17 of the Upper Tribunal Rules allow a party to withdraw its case and I assume that that is what they meant because there is nothing else they could have been asking.
I accept the withdrawal of the claimant's case. The Entry Clearance Officer's appeal is unresisted and I formally allow it. There is no proper basis for saying that the grounds are without merit and I substitute a decision dismissing the appeal against the Entry Clearance Officer's decision, although I note that there has now been a grant of entry clearance, whether on the present or a subsequent application.
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.