A v Secretary of State for the Home Department
The grant of permission to appeal is subject to resolution of the question of time, as the applicant's explanation for delay must be considered before determining whether to enlarge time for appeal.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: A; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 June 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (asylum/immigration) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal granted, subject to resolution of extension of time.
- Legal Topics
- Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, Assessment of Evidence, Credibility Findings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A
Claimant/appellant
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (asylum/immigration) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal erred in its assessment of the applicant's credibility and documentary evidence
- 2 Whether the application for permission to appeal should be granted out of time
Ratio Decidendi
The grant of permission to appeal is subject to resolution of the question of time, as the applicant's explanation for delay must be considered before determining whether to enlarge time for appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal granted, subject to resolution of extension of time.
Orders
- Applicant to file full explanation for delay within two weeks; respondent to reply within 14 days; applicant to respond within a further week if necessary; court to decide on extension of time before appeal proceeds.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment