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.
I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.
Mrs Head went on to submit that as regards the Judge's substantive decision, he had erred in law by not following the decision in Devaseelan . There was before the Judge previous Tribunal Determinations favourable to the Appellant. The Judge should have taken those findings as his starting point.
Finally, Mrs Head submitted that the Judge had erred in law in his consideration of proportionality by failing to take into account the Respondent's delays in dealing with the various applications of the Appellant.
In response, Mr Mills argued that there were no such errors of law. The Judge was not informed of any change of address of the Appellant, and there was no satisfactory explanation before the Judge for the Appellant's absence. The Tribunal was informed that the Appellant's representatives had been unable to contact the Appellant since January 2016. The Judge had no alternative but to hear the appeal in the absence of the Appellant.
Mr Mills went on to argue that there was no merit in the Devaseelan point. The Tribunal Determination of 2010 contained no findings as to fact, and at the time of the 2005 Determination, the Appellant had been living with his wife and child. That situation was overtaken by subsequent events.
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.