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.
No anonymity order was made by the First-tier Tribunal. We find that no particular issues arise on the facts of this case that might infringe the respondents-� protected human rights if the details were to become known publicly. For this reason no anonymity direction is made.
First-tier Tribunal Judge Young was satisfied that the appellant met the requirements of regulation 10(5) of the EEA Regulations 2006 and allowed the appeal. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge erred in law because the judge failed to make clear findings as to whether the appellant was divorced and whether the marriage was therefore -�terminated-� for the purpose of regulation 10(5) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (-�the EEA Regulations 2006-�).
The matter came before us to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law.
In response Mr Melvin said that there needed to be a finding on whether there had been a valid divorce because the paperwork showed that the appellant was represented at the divorce by various family members. She seemed to be adopting the position that best suited her. He asked us to treat the evidence the appellant gave with caution given the letters and evidence to show that her family members supported the divorce.
The First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error on a point of law.
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.