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.
"The Appellant complains that he and his wife were prevented from giving evidence by the Judge, that they were bullied by the presenting officer and that this was tolerated by the Judge. In short, it is said that the Appellant did not have a fair hearing."
Immediately following the hearing before the FtT, on the same day, the Appellant wrote to the Secretary of State's presenting officer's unit. His letter complained in general terms of " ill mannered, rude, insulting, bias and prejudicial conduct " on the part of the presenting officer concerned (the " PO "). He adverted to a letter from his wife's General Practitioner containing the statement that " .... She is on appropriate medication ". Having done so, he attributed to the PO the comment, when questioning his wife at the hearing:
[a] " ... It is strange that you do not know the name of the antidepressant even though you take it every day ".
[b] " The Honourable Judge intervened and mentioned that the doctor stated she is on 'appropriate' medication. "
Next, the letter complains that, with reference to the Appellant's condition of DVT, the PO stated:
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.