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 an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Morrison. An appeal by MA (hereinafter referred to as �the claimant�) was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.
After some further correspondence it appears that the Secretary of State did re-serve the 2010 decision along with a letter of 24 May 2013 stating that reconsideration of the earlier decision was refused.
The judge had before him a number of school reports and medical records. Reports for the older boy indicated that he was progressing well but the reports for the younger boy were not so positive. Medical reports for the older boy indicated that he had no ongoing health issues apart from asthma. The younger boy was assessed in March 2012 and recorded as �scoring significantly for inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity and oppositional behaviour�. This pointed to a diagnosis of ADD.
At the hearing before me Mr Matthews relied on the grounds of the application for permission to appeal.
I was referred by Mr Dewar to the words of Lord Mackay of Drumadoon at paragraph 28 of MS (India) , where he 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.