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 this appeal careful findings of fact were required in relation to the period when, according to the appellant, she had permission to work and also in relation to the hours and type of work she actually did and over what period. Arguably the judge did not make adequate findings to support the decision.
In June 2014 London School of technology was stripped of its sponsorship. Before that it had been a highly trusted sponsor. As such [it] was able to authorise work placements within the rules. I accept the evidence of the appellant that she was misquoted in the report of the immigration officer. I found her to be a reliable witness and her story to be true.
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.