The applicant appealed against the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing asylum. She feared persecution if returned to Zimbabwe because of her membership of the opposition political party. The IAT had disturbed the adjudicator’s decision on the facts.
Held: The Tribunal had no sufficient basis to disturb the adjudicator’s decision, and the appeal was allowed. The court noted that the Treasury Solciitor had failed to provide papers more than seven days before the hearing as required by the rules. Neither the court not the appellant’s solicitors knew what they had to prepare for despite repeated attempts to discover this. Late filing might be accepted in cases of emergency, but the defaulting party must at least forewarn the court and other parties why there was to be a default.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal, Civil Division) Lord Justice Latham Lord Justice Neuberger
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 128, Times 15-Feb-2005
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 1) CA 1-Jul-2004
The court handed down a New Practice Direction 52 for grounds of appeal, decisions in permissions to appeal, notices to respondents of appeals, appeal bundles etc. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Miftari v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-May-2005
The court emphasised the limited nature of the IAT’s jurisdiction under the 2002 Act, which is now restricted to considering points of law only: ‘Since the IAT now has jurisdiction to determine only points of law, it cannot put itself in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223303