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.
(a)     The Appellant accepted that he could not defend the Judge's decision following the Upper Tribunal's judgment in Celik and this being upheld by the Court of Appeal. His case effectively stood on all fours with that of Mr Celik;
(b)    The Respondent's policy to refuse to grant consent for new matters in the form of an Article 8 claim to be raised, adding to the futility of any adjournment of these proceedings;
(c)     The Appellant had not sought to respond in any way to the Tribunal's directions issued to him as briefly recorded above;
(d)    The Appellant had had ample time to raise a new matter with the Respondent, if he was minded to do so, since the publishing of the two judgments by the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in Celik in August 2022 and July 2023 respectively.
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.