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 is a citizen of Nigeria born on 19 April 1966. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the decisions of the respondent dated 29 October 2013 to refuse his application for registration certificate entry clearance as the spouse of his sponsor, a British citizen under paragraphs EC-P.1. of Appendix FM.
First-tier Tribunal Judge Kanith dismissed the appellant's appeal in a determination dated 20 August 2015. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ramsey in a decision dated 21 January 2016, stating that it is arguable that the Judge fell into error in not granting the appellant an adjournment set against the facts available to the Judge as referred to in the decision.
The Judge noted in his determination that "the appellant explained that she spoke to her legal representative over the telephone yesterday. She was at a loss how she was going to arrive at the hearing centre. She said that she would arrange for a taxi and that is how she attended the hearing centre to date. The appellant stated that she was not advised that her legal representatives would not be in a position to attend the hearing centre today. She did not seek an application to adjourn and had a copy of the relevant papers in front of her.
The Judge noted "in connection with the London underground industrial action, it has been well publicized for over a week that industrial action was to commence from 18.30 hours... I am therefore perplexed as to why the appellant's legal representative did not make alternative arrangements to ensure that the appellant was represented. The sponsor has made arrangements to arrive at the Tribunal centre in good time".
The Judge noted, "the appellant's legal representatives have shown a lack of pre-planning and disregarding making appropriate arrangements to attend the hearing centre. At the very least, once they realize that they may face difficulties with respect to nominating an alternative advocate to attend, they should have contacted the Tribunal as a matter of urgency and in advanced of the hearing date.
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.