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.
             In a determination promulgated on 15 February 2023 a judge of the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against refusal of her application for leave to remain on human rights grounds, finding that the decision would not be unlawful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
             A material legal error was found in the decision and that determination set aside by a Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge. Following a rather convoluted history the matter comes back before me today for the purposes of the Upper Tribunal substituting a decision to either allow or dismiss the appeal. The necessary transfer order has been made.
             In relation to the issue of representation, a large number of emails were exchanged shortly before the hearing containing a request that the appellant, her husband, and her barrister, Mr Stedman, be permitted to attend remotely. The Tribunal agreed as the hearing centre at Bradford could accommodate the request and no issues appeared to arise that required face-to-face attendance.
             On the morning of the hearing, however, a further email was received from the appellant stating she was not coming to the hearing as she was unwell. Nothing further was said and no supporting medical evidence provided.
             A further development is the receipt of a letter from the appellant's husband to which reference is made below.
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.