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 appeals came before Judge Gibbs on 29 June 2017 at Hatton Cross. The respondent was represented by a Presenting Officer, but there was no appearance by the first appellant or by a legal representative acting on her behalf.
The Judge went on to hear the appeals in the absence of the first appellant, and in her subsequent decision she gave her reasons for dismissing the appeals.
At paragraph [10] of her decision, she explained why she had proceeded to hear the appeals pursuant to Rule 28. She was satisfied that the appellants and Hunter Stone Law had been given a notice of the day, time and place of the hearing and no good reason had been provided for their non-attendance.
The appellants applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that neither they nor Hunter Stone Law had in fact been notified of the hearing. On 19 December 2017, Judge Pooler granted them permission to appeal because, while noting that Judge Gibbs declared herself satisfied that the appellants had been served with a notice of hearing, "there appears to be no evidence of any such notice in the Tribunal's files".
At the hearing before me to determine whether an error of law was made out, I confirmed from inspection of the file that there was no Notice of Hearing for a hearing on 29 June 2017. According to Hunter Stone Law, the Tribunal at Hatton Cross had subsequently confirmed to them orally that no notice of hearing had been sent out.
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.