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 appeal against the decision was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Green ("the judge") on 15 September 2023, after a hearing on 14 September 2023. The respondent before the First-tier Tribunal was not represented before the First-tier Tribunal. The judge considered that no adjournment had been requested and considered it was in the interests of justice to proceed to hear the appeal in the respondent's absence.
              The matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law and if so, whether any such error was material and thus whether the decision should be set aside.
              In the grounds of appeal and in oral submissions by Mr Wain it is argued in short summary for the respondent before the First-tier Tribunal as follows.
              It was further argued that the judge failed to consider the appellant's skills at the time of the ETS test over a decade earlier and if the judge had considered the evidence of the appellant's language skills up to 2014, when the ETS issue was identified, a different conclusion may have been reached. It was argued that the judge's decision was incomplete and unsustainable and rendered the judge's proportionality assessment unreliable as it failed to take account of the appellant's apparent deception.
          In the Rule 24 response and in oral submissions by Mr Khan for the appellant before the First-tier Tribunal it was argued, in short summary, as follows.
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.