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 Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Davies dismissing her appeal against the Respondent's decision to refuse her human rights claim.
              The Appellant applied for permission to appeal and was granted permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan in the following terms:
"It is arguable that several potentially significant documents, as listed in paragraph 16 of the grounds, were not before the judge who decided the appeal. It is arguable that the failure to consider these documents affected all aspects of the decision. All grounds are arguable."
              There was no Rule 24 response provided by the Respondent but Ms Arif indicated that the appeal was opposed on all grounds.
              At the conclusion of the hearing, I announced my decision that I had found that there was a material error of law, in respect of Ground 1, which infected the entirety of the decision but that my reasons for so finding would follow, which I now give. I find that the decision demonstrates a material error of law such that it should be set aside in its entirety due to the arguments raised and comprehensively set out in Ground 1 put forward by the Appellant, which may be summarised as follows.
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.