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 first ground of appeal is that there should have been an oral hearing of the appeal. In her rule 24 letter response, the Home Office accepts that this is arguable.
Having considered the file, it is my preliminary view that the First-tier Tribunal did err in not holding an oral hearing, given that there are facts in dispute. It is also my preliminary view that, as a result, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was wrong in law and should be set aside.
It is also my preliminary view that as the error of law identified means that, in effect, the appellant did not have a fair hearing, this appeal should be remitted (sent back) to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh oral hearing on all issues. None of the findings made by Judge Dunne will be preserved.
Accordingly, unless within ten working days of the issue of these directions there is any written objection to this course of action, supported by cogent argument, the Upper Tribunal will proceed to determine the appeal without an oral hearing and will remit it to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard again by a judge other than Judge Dunne. This means that there will be no need for a hearing in the Upper Tribunal.
The determination of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error of law and I 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.