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.
For the Appellants:��������� The appellants did not attend and were not represented
              These written reasons reflect the oral decision which we have given at the end of the hearing.
Taking each point in turn, Mr Mahmood is not the sponsor, the importance of which was stressed in HH (Sponsor as representative) Serbia [2006] UKAIT 00063 .� The sponsor is a Mr Muhammad Nawaz, said to be exercising treaty rights in the UK, whom the appellants wish to join.��
              Mr Mevin objected to Mr Mahmood's witness statement, on the basis that almost all of it contained legal submissions, thereby attempting to circumvent our refusal of a right of audience. �It also contained a number of comments in relation to the evidence before the Judge, as well as reiterating the wasted costs application, which was previously withdrawn.�
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.