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.
This is a decision on the papers without a hearing. The appellant requested an oral hearing. The respondent made no submissions on the question whether the Upper Tribunal should proceed to decide the questions described at para 4 below without a hearing. A face-to-face hearing or a remote hearing was not held for the reasons given at paras 13-17 below. The documents described at para 6 below were submitted. The order made is set out at para 38 below. (Administrative Instruction No. 2 from the Senior President of Tribunals).
The respondent refused to issue a residence card because she took the view that the appellant's marriage to the sponsor was a marriage of convenience.
By a Notice of Hearing dated 12 February 2020, this appeal to the Upper Tribunal was listed for hearing on 27 March 2020. However, the hearing was adjourned due to the imposition of the lockdown on 23 March 2020.
On 24 April 2020, the Upper Tribunal sent to the parties a " Note and Directions " issued by Upper Tribunal Judge Smith. At para 1 of the " Note and Directions ", Judge Smith stated that, in light of the need to take precautions against the spread of Covid-19, she had reached the provisional view, having reviewed the file in this case, that it would be appropriate to decide, without a hearing, the following questions:
(a) ( question (a) ) whether the Judge's decision involved the making of an error of law; and
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.