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 matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and if so to determine whether any such error was material and whether the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside and remade.
             Secondly, it is argued that there was a failure to take into account the sponsor's registration certificate that was issued on 17 th September 2018, the document being at page 36 of the appellants' bundle before the First-tier Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal referred only to the residence card issued on 7 th November 2022 which did not demonstrate a lengthy period of residence.
             The respondent did not provide a Rule 24 response. It was however conceded by Ms Gilmour that the first ground was made out, and that the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law.
             It was further agreed by both representatives that the appeal could be remade and allowed by consent on the basis of the properly made findings by the First-tier Tribunal that the sponsor had genuinely exercised Treaty rights.
         The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in taking into account irrelevant matters which led to the appeal being dismissed. It was sufficient to allow the appeal that the First-tier Tribunal found that the sponsor genuinely exercised Treaty rights in Portugal and that the appellants had genuinely resided with him in Portugal whilst he did so.
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.