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 appellants appeal with permission against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cox promulgated on 8 August 2013 dismissing their appeals against a decision of the respondent to refuse in the case of the first appellant his application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 Entrepreneur, and in the case of the second appellant permission to remain as his dependent. For the reasons which we will set out below it is unnecessary to go into detail on the facts of this case, suffice it to say that the appellants� immigration history is not disputed. It is set out in the refusal letter.
The appellants appealed against these decisions, requesting the appeals be dealt with on the papers without a hearing. For reasons which are not entirely clear, it appears that owing to an administrative error the bundle of papers which the appellants sent to the First-tier Tribunal at the main office in Leicester were not forwarded in time to Judge Cox, and that through no fault of the judge he reached a decision which did not take into account those documents. It is accepted by the Secretary of State that that is what occurred.
Accordingly we are satisfied that there was a procedural error in this case which resulted in the judge, through no fault of his, dismissing the appeal on the basis of the evidence before him. We hasten to add that it is accepted that the judge came to a decision which was open to him on the material that was before him, but clearly that was not a decision which he ought to have reached even if there was material that should have been taken into account.
Given that as a result it will now require a further fact-finding exercise to determine what material was in fact in front of the Secretary of State, we consider that it is not clear that had the material been taken into account it would have resulted in the appeal either being dismissed or allowed. Thus, it is appropriate in all the circumstances to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision on all issues to be taken into account.
The determination of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error of law and we set it aside.
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.