AA069062014 and Others: AIT 30 Aug 2017

Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting within the law and applying the relevant substantive law to the facts as found. That is partly because the law and the facts are never the subject of any detailed reference, disputes on the facts are not identified, and there are next to no findings of relevant fact; more seriously it is because the Judge’s statements in his decisions, either by direct assertion or by disquisition on the irrelevant, give real reason to suppose that he is not even trying to act within the law and apply the relevant substantive law to the facts as found.’


CMG Ockleton VP, O’Connor, Smith UTJJ


[2017] UKAITUR AA069062014




England and Wales


Citedex parte Gondolia 1991
In dismissing the claimant’s application for judicial review, Henry J held: ‘Secondly, it is said, and again correctly, that there is no mention in the adjudicator’s determination and reasons that the initiative for the first introduction of the . .
ApprovedIA307162014 AIT 5-Feb-2016
. .
CitedRe Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
CitedCapital and Suburban Properties v Swycher CA 1976
Although in certain procedural decisions, reasons need not be given, they otherwise must be. Buckley LJ said: ‘Litigants are entitled to know on what grounds their cases are decided. It is of importance that the legal profession should know on what . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Khan 1983
The court considered the need for a judge to give reasons
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘The important matter which must be borne in mind by Tribunals in the present type of circumstances is that it must be apparent from what they state by way of reasons . .
CitedSave Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mohd Amin 1992
Schiemann J said of adjudicators in immigration matters: ‘In my judgment adjudicators should indicate with some clarity in their decisions: (1) what evidence they accept; (2) what evidence they reject; (3) whether there is any evidence as to which . .
CitedRegina v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Rajendrakumar CA 11-Oct-1995
The three Tamil applicants had left the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers and gone to live in Colombo. It was asserted that in Colombo they had a well-founded fear of persecution because they were young male Tamils and were therefore . .
CitedMK (Duty To Give Reasons) Pakistan UTIAC 28-Oct-2013
UTIAC (1) It is axiomatic that a determination discloses clearly the reasons for a tribunal’s decision.
(2) If a tribunal finds oral evidence to be implausible, incredible or unreliable or a document to be . .
CitedPokhriyal v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 5-Dec-2013
Appeals by foreign students agaonst rejection of requests for entry to pursue further studies
Jackson LJ observed of the Pointe Based System Rules that they had ‘now achieved a degree of complexity which even the Byzantine emperors would have . .
CitedZhang, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 18-Apr-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.595021