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.
      On 28 August 2020 the Appellant made a further LTR partner application which was refused on 6 December 2021. He appealed against this decision and his appeal came before FtTJ Phull for hearing on 7 September 2022. In a decision and reasons dated 29 November 2022 the decision was promulgated dismissing the appeal.
      On 13 December 2022 an in time application for permission to appeal was made on the basis that the FtTJ failed to observe and implement the covid 19 rules present at date of application and failed to apply the judgment in Chikwamba [2008] UKHL 40 . In particular, the judge failed to consider the exceptional assurance concession in force prior to 31.8.20 which permitted the Appellant to apply for leave from inside the UK.
      On 28 December 2022, permission to appeal was granted by FtTJ Singer on the basis that it was arguable that the Judge did not properly apply the principles in Chikwamba (op cit) .
      A rule 24 response was lodged on 10 January 2023 which provides that the Covid guidance is clear that it applied to those whose leave expired between 24.1.2020 and 31.8.2020, whereas the Appellant was an overstayer since December 2009 and therefore the concession did not apply to him
      At the hearing before the Upper Tribunal Ms Gilmour sought to rely upon the rule 24 response dated 10 January 2023, which argued that the covid assurance was inapplicable to the Appellant since he had been an overstayer since 2009.
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.