![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> Entry Clearance Officer v TMG (Turkey, South Africa & Colombia) [2004] UKIAT 00028 (18 February 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2004/00028.html Cite as: [2004] UKIAT 28, [2004] UKIAT 00028 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
APPEAL No. [2004] UKIAT 00028 TMG (Turkey, South Africa & Colombia
)
Date of hearing: 13th January 2004
Date Determination notified: 18 February 2004
Entry Clearance Officer, Istanbul | APPELLANT |
and | |
T | RESPONDENT |
Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria | APPELLANT |
and | |
RESPONDENT | |
M | |
Entry Clearance Officer, Bogata |
APPELLANT |
and | |
G | RESPONDENT |
"To the Appellant
No representative in the United Kingdom has been nominated.
The appeal may be determined by an Adjudicator on the basis of these documents, together with any further written submissions that you may wish to make.
Any written submissions must be received in this office by [a date which is specified, which is 12 weeks after the date of the notice].
Any written submissions or further documents in a language other than English must be accompanied by a certified full translation.
A copy of the Adjudicator's written determination will be sent to you in due course."
In each of these three cases there was no response to that notice.
"1. The Adjudicator has erred in hearing the appeal on 9th January 2003 in the absence of a Presenting Officer.
2. The Appellate Authority had failed to comply with the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 in that (a) it did not give the Secretary of State for the Home Department the opportunity to indicate whether or not a hearing was requested (Rule 43); and/or (b) it did not notify the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the date, time and place of the hearing (Rule 13)."
"(a) The Appellate Authority has decided, after giving every other party an opportunity of replying to any representations submitted in writing by or on behalf of the Appellant, to allow the appeal."
That is the Rule which the Tribunal has used for a very long time what are sometimes called 'paper remittals'. The grounds of appeal are submitted to the other party and if there is no further response to them the appeal is allowed by way of remittal. Another is:
"(b) The Appellate Authority is satisfied that the Appellant, except where the Appellant is the Secretary of State or an officer, is outside the United Kingdom or that it is impractical to give notice of the hearing and in either case that no person is authorised to represent him at a hearing."
A further possibility which we mention for the sake of completeness is:
"(e) No party has requested a hearing."
"45 (1) An Adjudicator or the Tribunal may, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of this rule, determine an appeal without a hearing if –
(a) all the parties to the appeal consent;
(b) the party appealing against a relevant decision is outside the United Kingdom or it is impracticable to give him notice of a hearing and, in either case, he is unrepresented;
(c) a party has failed to comply with a provision of these rules or a direction of the Appellate Authority, and the Adjudicator or Tribunal is satisfied that in all the circumstances, including the extent of the failure and any reasons for it, it is appropriate to determine the appeal without a hearing; or
(d) the Adjudicator or Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the material before him or it and the nature of the issues raised, that the appeal can be justly determined without a hearing.
(2) Where paragraph (1)(c) applies and the Appellant is the party in default, the Adjudicator or Tribunal may dismiss the appeal without substantive consideration, if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.
(3) Where paragraph (1)(d) applies, the Adjudicator or Tribunal must not determine the appeal without a hearing without first giving the parties notice of his or its intention to do so, and an opportunity to make written representations as to whether there should be a hearing."
C M G OCKELTON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT