The court was asked whether, in cases heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) where the credibility of the appellant is in issue, there is a rule that a delay of more than three months between the hearing of oral evidence and the date of the FTT’s decision renders the decision unsafe.
Held: There is no such rule. In tribunal cases, as in court proceedings, excessive delay in making or promulgating a decision is not itself a reason for setting the decision aside. The correct approach is to ask whether the delay has caused the decision to be unsafe so that it would be unjust to let it stand. The only significance of the fact that delay between the hearing and the decision in an asylum case has exceeded three months is that, where the decision is challenged on an appeal, the Upper Tribunal should examine the FTT judge’s factual findings with particular care to ensure that the delay has not caused injustice to the appellant.
 EWCA Civ 1391
England and Wales
Cited – Sambasivam v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 10-Nov-1999
Where an Immigration Appeal Tribunal heard a case and the judgment would depend upon an assessment of the applicant as to his credibility, a delay of three months between the hearing and the delivery of the judgment was too long. The impression made . .
Cited – Arab Bank Plc v John D Wood Commercial Ltd (In Liquidation) and others CA 25-Nov-1999
Having once recovered damages against a valuer for a negligent survey, there was nothing to stop a lender recovering also under a policy of insurance under a mortgage indemnity guarantee, and so the lender was not required to give credit for monies . .
Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Cited – Cobham v Frett PC 18-Dec-2000
(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or . .
Cited – British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited HL 1912
The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
Cited – London and South of England Building Society v Stone CA 1983
A claim was by lenders against negligent valuers after they failed to spot subsidence. They sought for the difference of pounds 11,880 between the amount advanced and the amount which would have been lent upon a proper valuation. The borrowers’ . .
Appeal from – SS (Sri Lanka), Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Feb-2009
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2021; Ref: scu.618390