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 Entry Clearance Officer, with permission appeals against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Lloyd) who, in a determination promulgated on 21 st October 2016 allowed the Respondent's appeal on human rights grounds. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction however, as the Respondent is a minor, I consider that she requires anonymity for these proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.
Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
Whilst the Entry Clearance Officer is the Appellant in these proceedings and HN is the Respondent, I intend to refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal for sake of convenience.
I have heard submissions from Miss Fijiwala, who brings the appeal on behalf of the Entry Clearance Officer and those submissions are set out in my Record of Proceedings.
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.