UI2024001023

       An application was made, in time, for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on 22.12.23. The grounds, which were accompanied by a witness statement from counsel who represented the Appellant before the First tier Tribunal and a witness statement from the Appellant's older son, Dr Sagar, asserted, in essence, that:

(i)                  The judge had acted in a manner which was procedurally unfair, in that she refused to treat the Appellant as lacking litigation capacity as she disagreed with the psychiatric assessment of Dr Junaid without providing any clear rationale for this and also stated she had misplaced her notes and that she stepped into the arena contrary to the Surendran guidelines: MNM [2000] UKIAT 00005 at [6];

(ii)                The judge substituted her own view for those of the experts with regard to the treatment that the Appellant should receive on return to India;

(iii)              The judge decided that the Appellant's son should return to India with the Appellant to care for her, however, this was not a point taken by the Respondent and was not her case as set out in the refusal decision;

(iv)              The judge failed to consider the Appellant's case in the context of the expert evidence not only of Dr Junaid but also the social care report of Ms Davison, a former Director of Nursing contrary to the judgment in Mibanga [2005] EWCA Civ 367 ;