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.
(c) If the applicant is applying under the provisions in (d) in Table 4, he must provide:
(1) Advertising or marketing material, including printouts of online advertising, that has been published locally or nationally, showing the applicant's name (and the name of the business if applicable) together with the business activity,�
It is clear that the advertising materials are �specified documents� for the purposes of the rules. The grounds of appeal lodged on behalf of the appellant acknowledged that the advertising material did not state the appellant's name but argued this was an error which, if the respondent had queried, could have been easily remedied.
At the hearing in the First-tier Tribunal submissions were made to the effect that the respondent should have contacted the appellant and operated the evidential flexibility policy now contained in paragraph 245AA of the rules. It was also argued that the decision to remove the appellant would interfere with the private life he had established in the UK. The respondent argued that paragraph 245AA did not assist the appellant because, had the appellant been contacted in this way, he would have had to change his advertisement.
Judge Ruth found the rules were not met because the advertising material did not state the appellant�s name. He continued:
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.