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 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. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court. This is because the appeal relates to an asylum claim.
              This Tribunal issued detailed directions at the end of the adjourned October 2023 hearing. These related to the provision of the original Syrian identity document and evidence as to its chain of custody. The respondent was to confirm that it retained a copy of the same document. The respondent complied with those directions. The appellant complied with none of them.
              The Tribunal learned that on 14 th February 2024, the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened in the practice of the appellant's representatives, Duncan Ellis Solicitors. The Tribunal sent to the appellant directly at his home address notice of a telephone case management hearing, which was heard on 17 th May 2024. The appellant did not attend and was not represented at that hearing, which was, as a consequence, adjourned.
              On 21 st May 2024, this Tribunal wrote to the appellant by post (it does not have a telephone number or email address for him), in the following terms:
"I am writing to you regarding your appeal to the Upper Tribunal (reference UI-2023-001295).
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.