Pant v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1964 (21 November 2003)

Pant v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1964 (21 November 2003)

The delay of nearly three years in seeking permission to appeal was excessive and inadequately explained; the merits of the case and alleged procedural irregularities were insufficiently exceptional to justify an extension of time; the applicant retains the ability to pursue a human rights claim, mitigating prejudice.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1964
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Janaki Pant; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Asylum, Delay in Appeal, Burden of Proof, Adjournment, Procedural Fairness
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Delay in Appeal Burden of Proof Adjournment Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janaki Pant

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances justify granting permission to appeal after substantial delay
  2. 2 Whether procedural irregularities in the handling of evidence and adjournment warranted remission to the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The delay of nearly three years in seeking permission to appeal was excessive and inadequately explained; the merits of the case and alleged procedural irregularities were insufficiently exceptional to justify an extension of time; the applicant retains the ability to pursue a human rights claim, mitigating prejudice.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed