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.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Second Appellant, being a child, is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Second Appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Second Appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court . An application can be made by the parties to vary this order.
              The Appellant's appeal against the decision of the Respondent had come for hearing before First-tier Tribunal Judge C. Rose ("the judge"), sitting at the Hatton Cross Hearing Centre on 4 th October 2023. The judge had considered the evidence and had come to, amongst others, the following conclusions:
(2)            The First Appellant's parents provided the Appellant with a level of financial support without which she would not be able to survive and that was at paragraph 16 of the judge's decision.
(3)            At paragraph 17 the judge said "It follows that, whilst I am persuaded that the First Appellant is financially dependent upon her parents, I am not persuaded that she is emotionally dependent upon them".
(4)            At paragraph 20 the judge said:
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.