The claimants said that rules which allowed an appeal tribunal to proceed in their absence when they were absent through no fault of their own, were unlawful in depriving them of a fair trial. The claimants had each moved house but their former solicitors had failed to notify the court.
Held: There was no general principle of law which fixed a party with the procedural errors of his or her representative. The rules appeared to require the tribunal to proceed in the claimant’s absence. The right to be heard on an issue of radical importance to the individual, on such wide and rigid grounds when the party had done nothing wrong but whose lives and safety might in consequence be put at risk was infringed. The rule sacrificed fairness to speed and denied the tribunal any power to hold those two desiderata in balance. There was ‘no universal surrogacy principle’ which (reformulated) rules ‘would have to depart from in order to operate justly’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Sedley, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Wall
Citations:
Times 26-Jan-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 13
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83, Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 (SI 2005 No 230) 19 56, European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-Nov-1989
The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248017