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 see no need for and do not make any order restricting reporting about this case.
Nevertheless, the First-tier Tribunal Judge, mindful of the previous adjournment said at paragraph 6:
"I took the view that the appellants had been given six weeks notice of the verification report which to provide adequate time to obtain additional evidence if they wanted to. I decided that it would not be fair or reasonable or in the interests of justice to adjourn the hearing a second time."
Clearly, it was the judge's view that the appellants had had an opportunity and had not done anything with it.
The present solicitors have gone to the trouble of producing further evidence, although, curiously, they did not serve this by way of a proper notice of intention to call further evidence. It was simply appended to the grounds. It is another letter from the Natun Bazar branch, it is said, insisting that the original documents were genuine and that the phone call made from the Gulshan Bank did not happen.
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.