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.
     Although the appeal before us was brought by the respondent we shall continue to refer to the parties as they were known at first instance in the interests of clarity.
     The appellant appealed that decision and his appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Adio sitting at Hatton Cross on 24 May 2023. The judge allowed the appeal finding that the appellant was dependent upon his sponsor, see [12] of the determination. The respondent in turn appealed that decision on two grounds.
     The second ground was that the judge had given inadequate reasons for saying that the appellant was now dependent on his sponsor given that the appellant must have received money from the sale of the business in South Africa. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier on the grounds that the appellant could not show he was a dependent given the judges other findings in respect of the appellant's financial resources.
     As a result of the grant of permission the matter came before us to determine whether there was a material error of law in the First-Tier Tribunal's decision such that it fell to be set aside. If there was we would make directions on the rehearing of the appeal. If there was not the decision at first instance would stand.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error of law and we dismiss the respondent's onward appeal.
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.