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.
There were several challenges to the determination, the first of which was that the judge failed to consider the best interests of the appellants and their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was, in my view entirely properly, conceded by Mr Dewison that the judge should have had regard to the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, in respect of this appeal, involving as it does the admission of children under the age of 18, however, the judge failed to do that.
I am satisfied that this is a case which falls squarely within paragraph 7 of the Senior President�s Practice Statement given the length of time the parties would have to wait for the matter to be relisted before me in North Shields or Field House, and that it could conversely be heard relatively speedily by the First-tier Tribunal. In view of the overriding objective informing the onward conduct of this appeal, I have decided that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh before a First-tier Tribunal Judge, other than Judge Gordon.
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.