Williams, R (on the application of) v First Tier Tribunal [2012] EWHC 552 (Admin) (17 February 2012)

Williams, R (on the application of) v First Tier Tribunal [2012] EWHC 552 (Admin) (17 February 2012)

The First Tier Tribunal was entitled to refuse an extension of time because the claimant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, supported by evidence, as required by the principles in BO. Detention alone is not a sufficient reason, and the shortness of the delay does not amount to special circumstances.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 552 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Williams; Defendant: First Tier Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Deportation, Judicial Review of Tribunal Decision
Immigration Law Administrative Law Extension of Time for Appeal Deportation Judicial Review of Tribunal Decision

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Williams

Claimant

First Tier Tribunal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Tier Tribunal correctly refused an extension of time to appeal against a deportation decision
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal properly applied the principles in BO (extension of time for appealing) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00035

Ratio Decidendi

The First Tier Tribunal was entitled to refuse an extension of time because the claimant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, supported by evidence, as required by the principles in BO. Detention alone is not a sufficient reason, and the shortness of the delay does not amount to special circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review application refused
  • Costs awarded to the defendant in the sum of £8,154.80, not to be enforced without leave of the court