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.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] ( and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified ) is granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant ( and/or other person ). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
             For the purposes of this decision, the parties are referred to as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
             In summary, the respondent's grounds argued that the First-tier Tribunal failed to engage with the issue of the appellant's nationality; failed to properly consider articles 3 and 8 ECHR; and erred in the application of the Devaseelan principle to the previous decision of the First-tier Tribunal in 2014.
             By her 'error of law' decision promulgated on 10.11.22, Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal but only to a limited extend. The decisions in relation to nationality, risk on return and risk of suicide were upheld. However, error of law was found in relation to the decision in respect of s72, which had found that the appellant had rebutted the presumption, and the sixth question in J as to the article 3 risk of suicide.
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.