tribunals – Page 24 – Current Awareness

Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted June 8th, 2016 in appeals, bias, law reports, professional conduct, tribunals by sally

Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 492

‘When a party seeks to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that there had been bias or misconduct on the part of the First-tier Tribunal, the following guidance should be followed. (1) Any application for permission to appeal, if based (in whole or part) on such a ground, should be closely scrutinised. Such an allegation, if to be sufficient to merit the grant of permission at all, should ordinarily be expected to be properly particularised and appropriately evidenced. (2) If an allegation of bias or misconduct is raised which is adjudged sufficient to merit the grant of permission to appeal then it should be normal practice for the Upper Tribunal thereafter to obtain the written comments of the judge concerned. (3) Such written comments of the judge, where obtained, should be provided to the parties for the purposes of the appeal hearing in the Upper Tribunal. In addition, any such written comments should be retained on the file pending any possible further appeal to the Court of Appeal. (4) There may be some cases where it may be necessary to obtain the tribunal judge’s own note or record of the entire hearing since proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal are not ordinarily recorded and no transcript of the hearing will be available. (5) It will normally be likely to be of assistance to the Upper Tribunal to know what the advocate for the respondent has to say as to what happened or what was said before the First-tier Tribunal. Providing such observations is more likely to help produce a fuller and accurate picture of what actually happened or was said in the First-tier Tribunal. Where the advocate does not have a precise note or recollection, the Upper Tribunal can be told. (6) Whether oral evidence is needed at the hearing of the appeal on the issue of what happened or what was said below should be carefully considered by the parties. (7) It is likely to be important in appeals of this nature for the file to be reviewed and any directions given by an Upper Tribunal judge in good time before the substantive appeal hearing (para 53).’

WLR Daily, 27th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Winterburn and another v Bennett and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 8th, 2016 in appeals, easements, law reports, parking, prescription, rights of way, tribunals by sally

Winterburn and another v Bennett and another [2016] EWCA Civ 482

‘The claimant owners of a fish and chip shop claimed as a result of use over a number of years to have acquired by prescription the right for themselves and others using their premises to park on land comprising part of a car park belonging to the defendants. The defendants’ premises, which were next to the car park, had been used as a club and users of those premises used the car park. The entrance to the car park was adjacent to the claimants’ shop. The claimants had operated the shop from about 1987 or 1988 until 2012. Throughout that time, their suppliers had up to nine times a week pulled off the road into the disputed part of the car park and parked there for long enough to make their deliveries, and their customers had parked on the disputed land while they bought their fish and chips. On the whole that use of part of the car park did not interfere with the s’ operations but over a seven-year period there were 12 to 15 occasions on which the defendants asserted ownership of the disputed land, and, expressly or impliedly, asserted that the claimants and their suppliers and customers had no right to park on it. At all times until 2007 there was a sign attached to the wall of the building on one side of the entranceway to the car park, erected on behalf of the defendants, stating “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only. By order of the Committee”, and a similar sign in the window of the club premises. The claimants claimed that their right to park, acquired by prescription by “lost modern grant”, had been established by their 20 years’ uninterrupted user “as of right”, namely, without force, without secrecy and without permission. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the two signs were clearly visible, they were insufficient to prevent the claimants from acquiring the claimed parking rights. The Upper Tribunal allowed the defendants’ appeal, reversing that finding.’

WLR Daily, 25th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Home Office unlawfully imposes curfew on migrant – Free Movement

Posted June 6th, 2016 in appeals, bail, deportation, immigration, news, tribunals by sally

‘Gedi, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 409 (17 May 2016) is a case where the Home Office took it into their own hands to impose curfew restrictions over and above bail conditions those imposed by the First Tier Tribunal, as well as those they are entitled to impose as afforded to the Home Office by statute. The Court of Appeal were clear they had no such power to do so.’