COS SERVICES LIMITED (1) IRENE M NICHOLSON (2) WENDY E WILLANS [2017] UKUT 0382 (LC)
|
|
- Prudence Jackson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 COS SERVICES LIMITED v (1) IRENE M NICHOLSON (2) WENDY E WILLANS [2017] UKUT 0382 (LC) On its face, this was a simple dispute about the cost of insuring a building. On the landlord s case, the following amounts were recoverable: /15: 12, /16: 12, /17: 11, Having heard witnesses on both sides: Mr John Blain FCII for the tenants, and Mr Ian Capjon, property manager for the landlord, the FTT determined that the landlord was only entitled to recover the following: /15: 2, /16: 2, /17: 3, Rather oddly, given that the lessees complaint appears to have related to the cost of the insurance, the FTT focused on whether the insurance premiums had been reasonably incurred. Logic would suggest that it might have been more relevant to focus on whether the premiums were reasonable in amount, but that is not the only oddity in this case.
2 Permission to appeal The other oddity was the route through which the FTT granted permission to appeal. When the landlord applied for permission, it included a letter from its insurer. That letter caused the FTT to grant permission to appeal on the ground that, had the letter been in evidence before it, it might have reached a different decision. I am not sure how the rules allow for permission to appeal to be granted on that basis. In any event, the FTT directed that the appeal should be by way of re-hearing. The Upper Tribunal directed however, that the appeal should be by way of review of the FTT s decision. Ultimately, given that both sides attended the appeal with their witnesses, HHJ Stuart Bridge heard the appeal as a re-hearing. It is enough to give us procedural geeks sleepless nights. Chiltern Court Ms Nicholson and Mrs Willans bought flat 15, Chiltern Court in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, in September It is a well-maintained, purpose-built block, predicated on even numbers. There are: - 16 flats arranged over four storeys, and - Eight garages in two blocks. Urbanpoint Property Management Ltd had managed Chiltern Court on behalf of the freeholder, Cos Services Ltd, since 1989.
3 The lease The lease, granted on 29 September 1967, was for 999 years. An annual ground rent of 15 was payable. It contained a covenant on the lessees part: not to use the flat or any part thereof or permit the same to be used other than as a private residence only in one occupation; and not during the last seven years of the said term to assign or underlet the flat or any part thereof without the consent in writing of the Lessor first obtained. The lessees were otherwise at liberty to dispose of the flat as they wished. The insuring covenant As is common in leases, this was a long one: At all times during the said term (unless such insurance shall be vitiated by any act or default of the Lessee or the owner Lessee or occupier of any other flat comprised in the Building) insure and keep insured the said Building against loss or damage by fire and such other risks (if any) as the Lessor thinks fit in some insurance office of repute in the full value thereof including insurance to cover architects and legal fees and two years rent and will whenever reasonably required produce to the Lessee the policy or policies of such insurance and the receipt for the last premium for the same and will in the event of the said Building being damaged or destroyed by fire as soon as reasonably practicable lay out the insurance moneys in the repair rebuilding or reinstatement of the said Building. The lessees of flat 15 were liable together to pay 1/16 of the insurance premium for the building. The statutory framework Just to refresh his (and our) memories, HHJ Bridge set out the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act: sections 18, 19 and 27A.
4 The Schedule to the 1985 Act On the appeal, the lessees raised a further argument. They relied on the Schedule to the 1985 Act, which deals exclusively with insurance. Paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Schedule provides that the Tribunal may determine that: - the insurance available from the landlord s nominated insurer for insuring the tenant's dwelling is unsatisfactory in any respect, or - the premiums payable in respect of any such insurance are excessive. If the Tribunal makes such a determination, paragraph 8(4) empowers it to direct the landlord to use a different insurer. Unfortunately for the lessees however, as they only raised the point on the appeal, HHJ Bridge held that he had no power to decide it, as it had not been raised in front of the FTT. The meaning of reasonably incurred costs The FTT was not taken to any authorities on the meaning of reasonably incurred, but on the appeal the landlord, represented by Counsel, relied on Avon Estates (London) Ltd v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd [2013] UKUT 0264 (LC), which summarises the case law that has grown around the phrase. Havenridge v Boston Dyers Ltd [1994] 2 EGLR 73 The leases here were of commercial property, so the 1985 Act did not apply. HHJ Bridge adopted the summary of the Court of Appeal s judgment set out in Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant at 7.193: Where a lease contained an obligation on the landlord to insure the premises in some insurance office of repute, and an obligation on the tenants to pay by way of further and additional rent all yearly or other sums as the Lessor shall from time to time properly expend or pay to any insurance company in respect of or for insuring and keeping insured the premises, it was held that:
5 (1) properly did not mean reasonably ; (2) there was no implied term that the premium recoverable from the tenants should be fair and reasonable; (3) the landlord could not recover in excess of the premium which he had paid and agreed to pay in the ordinary course of business; (4) the fact that the landlord might have been able to obtain a lower premium elsewhere was not relevant; he was not obliged to shop around; and (5) it was sufficient for the landlord to show either that the premium was representative of the market rate, or that the insurance contract was negotiated at arms length and in the market place. Berrycroft Management Co Ltd v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd (1996) 29 HLR 444 Here the properties were residential. - The management company covenanted to insure blocks of flats occupied by tenants under long leases in some insurance office of repute and if directed by the landlord through a company nominated by the landlord. - Each tenant covenanted with the management company and the landlord to pay to the company a management charge which included a proportion of the cost of the insurance. The Court of Appeal began by interpreting the lease. It held that the landlord enjoyed an unqualified right to nominate either the company or the agency through which the insurance was to be placed. The management company and the tenants were protected by the qualification that the insurance office should be of repute. The Court then moved on to whether the costs had been reasonably incurred under the 1985 Act.
6 It noted that the judge below had: - Thoroughly reviewed the evidence, - Determined that the quotations for insurance obtained were competitive, being neither unreasonable nor excessive, and negotiated in the ordinary course of business, and - Concluded that the active and responsible management of the agency nominated by the landlord was, overall, beneficial to the tenants. The tenants appeal was dismissed. The costs had not been unreasonably incurred. Williams v Southwark Borough Council (2001) 33 HLR 22 Here, Lightman J held that the costs of insurance specifically the commission given by the broker to the local authority were not unreasonably incurred. He reached that conclusion on the wording of the lease. Forcelux Ltd v Sweetman [2001] 2 EGLR 173 In the Lands Tribunal, Mr Paul Francis FRICS adjudicated on the cost of insurance that the landlord covenanted to provide. On the lessees case, it was too high. As is often the case where a landlord owns a portfolio of properties, all were insured under one policy. The landlord gave evidence that the single policy was beneficial because: - The insurer agreed to provide cover, even if one of the properties was left out the policy schedule; - There were administrative savings in paying a single premium and of using a broker to deal with claims handling; - There was alternative accommodation cover, and - There were specially reduced subsidence excesses.
7 The landlord accepted that commercial block policy premiums could be much higher than for owner-occupiers, but argued that it was not possible to compare block with single property policies, because they were not the same. In a decision that is often cited (by me and many others I suspect), Mr Francis said: [39] In determining the issues regarding the insurance premiums and the cost of major works and their related consultancy and management charges, I consider, first, Mr Gallagher s submissions as the interpretation of section 19(2A) of the 1985 Act, and specifically his argument that the section is not concerned with whether costs are reasonable but whether they are reasonably incurred. In my judgment, his interpretation is correct, and is supported by the authorities quoted. The question I have to answer is not whether the expenditure for any particular service charge item was necessarily the cheapest available, but whether the charge that was made was reasonably incurred. [40] But to answer that question, there are, in my judgment, two distinctly separate matters I have to consider. First, the evidence, and from that whether the landlord s actions were appropriate, and properly effected in accordance with the requirements of the lease, the RICS Code and the 1985 Act. Second, whether the amount charged was reasonable in the light of that evidence. This second point is particularly important as, if that did not have to be considered, it would be open to any landlord to plead justification for any particular figure, on the grounds that the steps it took justified the expense, without properly testing the market. [41] It has to be a question of degree, and while the appellant [sc. landlord] has submitted a well-reasoned and... in my view a correct interpretation of reasonably incurred, that cannot be a licence to charge a figure that is out of line with the market norm. On the evidence before him, he held that the insurance cost was reasonably incurred.
8 Avon Estates We leap forward to Here, the LVT determined that insurance costs had been reasonably incurred and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the tenants appeal. It held that the LVT had properly applied the law, and that the landlord was not obliged to shop around to find the cheapest insurance. In what might be described as a rather eyebrow-raising generalisation, it continued: [30]... So long as the insurance is obtained in the market and at arm s length then the premium is reasonably incurred. There is nothing to suggest that the insurance was arranged otherwise than in the normal course of business, and the [tenants] did not seek to adduce evidence to support such a contention. The [tenants ] complaint is that it might be possible to obtain a cheaper rate, but it is not for the landlord to establish (as has been expressly found in Berrycroft) that the insurance premium was the cheapest that could be found in order for the costs to have been reasonably incurred. The words properly testing the market used by Mr Francis in Forcelux in 2001 do not in any way detract from the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Berrycroft and Havenridge that the landlord must prove either that the rate is representative of the market rate, or that the contract was negotiated at arm s length and in the market-place. The burdens At this point in the appeal, HHJ Bridge took stock: - The burden of proving that costs had been reasonably incurred was borne by the landlord, but - There was some conflict between Forcelux and Avon Estates as to how a tribunal is to assess whether insurance costs have been reasonably incurred.
9 In Forcelux, the approach was cumulative: - First the Tribunal assessed the appropriateness and lawfulness of the landlord s actions in claiming the costs, and - Secondly it assessed the reasonableness of the amount being claimed. In Avon Estates however, the approach was in the alternative. The landlord had to prove one of two things. Either: - That the rate charged was representative of the market rate, or - That the contract was negotiated at arm s length and in the market place. According to Avon Estates, provided that the landlord had conducted the proper processes, an insurance premium that was itself unreasonably high in amount may nevertheless have been reasonably incurred. The Waaler factor The need to reconcile the conflict between Forcelux and Avon Estates was arguably superseded by the Court of Appeal s judgment in Waaler v Hounslow LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 45, where the court specifically reviewed Forcelux. Waaler is not about insurance premiums. It is however about whether costs of major works to the fabric of a local authority block were reasonably incurred. In the Upper Tribunal, the tenant successfully argued that in deciding whether the incur costs, the local authority should have taken into account: - The length of the leases of the flats, - The leaseholders views of the works, and - The financial impact of the works upon them.
10 In the Court of Appeal, the landlord argued that if a landlord reasonably takes the view that his proposed course of action is a reasonable way of dealing with underlying defects, he need not take account of the tenants views and the costs will have been reasonably incurred. The reasonableness of the landlord s actions, so the argument went, should be judged against the reasonableness standard of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, aka the Wednesbury principles. Lewison LJ gave lengthy consideration to the meaning of reasonably incurred in the 1985 Act. He distinguished between the concepts of rationality and reasonableness. Rationality Dealing with rationality first, he held that if a contract for example a lease empowers one party to make a decision that will impose a financial liability on another, the empowered party must exercise its discretion rationally. Effectively therefore the law implies into the contract a term that the decision-making process will be lawful and rational in the public law, Wednesbury sense. That means that - The decision will be made rationally (as well as in good faith) and consistently with its contractual purpose, and - That the result will not be so outrageous that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it: see Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17. Reasonably incurred Rationality is not end of the story, as Lewison LJ explained further: [25] If the landlord incurs costs that are not justified by applying the test of rationality, then the costs in question will fall outside the scope of the contractually recoverable service charge.
11 The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 must have been intended to provide protection against costs which, but for its operation, would have been contractually recoverable. It follows in my judgment that merely applying a rationality test would not give effect to the purpose of the legislation. The statutory test is whether the cost of the work is reasonably incurred. [26] Part of the context for deciding whether costs have been reasonably incurred is the fact that, in principle, the cost of the work is to be borne by the lessees... [27] This is emphasised by the definition of relevant costs in section 18(3)(c) which ties the meaning of that expression to a service charge as defined by section 18(1). In other words no cost is a relevant cost unless it is part of an amount payable by a tenant. When any tribunal considers whether a cost has been reasonably incurred it will always have as its context that, if it has been reasonably incurred, the tenant will have to contribute to it. If it is to have any meaning, section 19 of the 1985 Act: must have been intended to protect the leaseholder against charges that were contractually recoverable otherwise it would serve little useful purpose. Turning then to Forcelux, the Court of Appeal observed that: It is true that the member considered the landlord s decision-making process. But the important point is that he did not stop there. He also tested the outcome by reference to what the cost of cover was on the market. In other words the landlord s decision-making process is not the only touchstone. The outcome was also particularly important. At last HHJ Bridge had his answer: If, in determining whether a cost has been reasonably incurred, a tribunal is restricted to an examination of whether the landlord has acted rationally, section 19 will have little or no impact for the reasons identified by the Court of Appeal in Waaler.
12 I agree, he said, with the Court of Appeal that this cannot have been the intention of Parliament when it enacted section 19 as it would add nothing to the protection of the tenant that existed previously. It must follow that the tribunal is required to go beyond the issue of the rationality of the landlord s decision-making and to consider in addition whether the sum being charged is, in all the circumstances, a reasonable charge. It is, as the Lands Tribunal identified in Forcelux, necessarily a two-stage test. That does not mean that the landlord must find the cheapest insurance premium on the market. It does not prevent a landlord from insuring its whole portfolio under one policy, but it does mean that the landlord: - Must consider the terms of the lease and the risks that are to be insured against; - Must be able to explain the process by which the particular policy and premium have been selected, with reference to the steps taken to assess the current market, and - Will need to produce evidence that a noticeably higher premium under a block policy provided significant compensating advantages to the lessees. Equally, any comparable quotes obtained by tenants must be referable to the risks against which the landlord must insure under the lease: they must be genuinely likefor-like. Back to the evidence His review of the law complete, HHJ Bridge applied himself to the evidence before him. The landlord s evidence The landlord s property manager, Mr Iain Capjohn, gave the landlord s live evidence. He explained: - The general position and conversations with the broker, Genavco Insurance Ltd, although he was not able to explain how the policy had been negotiated;
13 - The premium had been affected by a very large claim in ; - The landlord s brokers tested the market annually when the policy was due to be renewed, and advised if the policy should be changed. In 2014, for example, the policy had been moved from AXA to NIG; - A large, comprehensive block policy was required to take account of periods where flats may be unoccupied without the landlord s knowledge, and to comply with the landlord s insurance obligations; - No commission was paid to the managing agents, but the landlord derived a 10% commission from the brokers; - The landlord s mainly long leasehold properties were sprinkled across the country, although Mr Capjohn did not know how many properties were covered by the policy; - The landlord wanted a comprehensive all-cover policy because it did not want to have to deal with discrepancies and it was crucial that everything was covered, and - There had been delays in responding to tenants enquiries because the brokers provided the answers to questions. There had been no effort on the landlord s part to arrange for the tenants insurance witness, Mr Blain, to speak to the landlord s brokers. The landlord also produced two letters one of which being the one that caused the FTT to give permission to appeal. The first was from the broker, Genavco, which gave some background as to how the premium was decided. The second was from NIG, the insurers, explaining what it described as the essential protections included in the policy in order to ensure the block policy covered all eventualities. They were: - Cover for sub-letting, irrespective of the state of knowledge of the landlord; - Maintaining cover where there was sub-letting, irrespective of the nature of the sub-let;
14 - Maintaining cover if any part of the property was unoccupied or used for business purposes; - Maintaining cover even if payment of the premium was delayed, with an undertaking to maintain insurance for the benefit of the freeholders in such event. NIG stated however that it expected to be notified as soon as the landlord became aware of any of the first three essential protections, and that once notified, it reserve[d] the right to underwrite any change in risk when we are made aware. In relation to delays in payment, fraud, criminal act, wilful or malicious act or neglect on the part of the freeholders removed the protection. The tenants evidence Mr John Blain FCII gave evidence for the lessees. He did not do so as an expert, and it was accepted that he was not impartial, because he had acted in a professional capacity on behalf of Mrs Willans s husband for over thirty years. Even so, HHJ Bridge found him to be an impressive and truthful witness who was clearly at a loss to explain how one insurer could be charging premiums over four times the amount of other insurers for what were similar albeit not identical terms. That was all the more so, given Mr Blain s opinion that the block policy should produce lower premiums, rather than higher ones. For balance, HHJ Bridge would have liked to have heard from a broker with relevant expertise on behalf of the landlord. Mr Capjon, the managing agent, could only give limited evidence, because he could not explain the mechanics for apportioning the premium between the landlord s various properties. Further, whilst the landlord s case was built on the advantages of the essential protections, HHJ Bridge noted that those protections were not absolute. The insurer was entitled to withdraw cover, if not notified as soon as the landlord knew of a subletting/empty property/business use. Further the Covea and AXA comparables produced by the tenants echoed the notification provisions relating to changes of tenancy or occupation. The differences between the NIG and Covea and AXA policies were therefore not that significant.
15 Conclusion The significant difference between the cost of the landlord s NIG policy and the cost of other, lower-cost premiums available on the open market on similar terms continued to mystify HHJ Bridge. It was a mystery that the landlord had been wholly unable to explain. It had therefore failed to satisfy the Tribunal that the amounts sought to be charged to the tenants were reasonably incurred. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Observations More mystery It occurs to me that it might be said that section 19 repeats itself. If the reasonably incurred test has two stages, of the which the second is directed at the reasonableness of the amount claimed, why does section 19 also provide a separate, single stage test relating solely to the reasonableness of the amount claimed? It is not the case that that the reasonably incurred test only applies to costs which the landlord has the discretion to incur. The Schedule to the 1985 Act The Schedule to the 1985 Act makes a rare, if fleeting appearance here. In my experience it is rarely relied upon, despite its useful provisions. I cantered gently through it a couple of years ago in my observations to this post. Rather than repeat that exercise, I think that some expansion on Southwark v Williams is called for, raising as it does the c word commission. Insurance and commissions From HHJ Bridge s decision, it would appear that Lightman J accepted that the local authority was entitled to 10% commission as a matter of, well, just what happens when a landlord insures.
16 The position in Williams however was that the insurer handed over the claims handling function to the local authority. In those circumstances, the court determined that the commission was an amount of money reasonably incurred for the provision of that service. In other words, the local authority earned the commission by doing something that the insurer would otherwise have been obliged to do itself. If the right (or not) to retain insurance commissions are your bag, you might like to read this decision by HHJ Huskinson. It seems to me that there are arguments even without diving into the law of trusts quite clearly against landlords being entitled to retain a commission simply because they have placed insurance with a particular insurer. One day, I have no doubt, there will be a case that unpacks the whole commission caboodle.
Before: LORD JUSTICE LLOYD LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER Between: - and -
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 669 Case No: B5/2012/2579 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT HIS HONOUR JUDGE WINSTANLEY Royal Courts of Justice
More informationSection 20B - What, why and How? Mike Edmunds Camden Council
Section 20B - What, why and How? Mike Edmunds Camden Council Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 What is it? 20B - Limitation of service charges: time limit on making demands. Commonly called
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationAli (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI.
IAC-FH-GJ-V6 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 August 2012 Determination Promulgated Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April Before
IAC-AH-DP-V2 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationPolicy Wording Legal Expenses and Rent Protection for Residential Landlords
Policy Wording Legal Expenses and Rent Protection for Residential Landlords V8.20160101 LEGAL EXPENSES & RENT PROTECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS INSURANCE POLICY WORDING This insurance covers an Insured
More information-and- RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT TO THE TRIBUNAL S DECISION DATED 11 MAY 2016
CASE REFERENCE: BIR/00CN/LSC/2014/0011 BIR/00CN/LSC/2014/0026 IN THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) BETWEEN: (1) THE KEW PHASE ONE RTM COMPANY LIMITED (2) THE KEW PHASE TWO
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) EA/07000/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 May 2017
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) EA/07000/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 May 2017 On 6 June 2017 Determination given orally
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 March 2015 On 20 April 2015 Delivered orally. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 17 March 2015 On 20 April 2015 Delivered orally Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/05672/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 April 2018 On 3 May 2018
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/05672/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 April 2018 On 3 May 2018 Before DEPUTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 16 June 2017 On 6 July Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30759/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 16 June 2017 On 6 July 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationRent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest
Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest The Court of Appeal in their latest judgement has confirmed that rent paid in advance is not a deposit. This was the case of Johnson vs Old which was
More informationVALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND
VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND Council Tax Liability Appeal; Hierarchy of Liability; definition of owner; material interest; leasehold interest for 6 months or more; Macattram v London Borough of Camden
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PLIMMER. Between MR (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/09301/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Manchester Civil Justice Decision and Reasons Centre Promulgated On: 9 April 2018 On: 12 th April
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between I L (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12026/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 May 2016 On 1 June 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 25 July 2014 On 11 August 2014 Oral determination given following hearing. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30481/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 25 July 2014 On 11 August 2014 Oral determination given
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015 Prepared on 17 th March Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT
IAC-FH-AR/V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/52919/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL ML (student; satisfactory progress ; Zhou explained) Mauritius [2007] UKAIT 00061 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House 2007 Date of Hearing: 19 June Before: Senior
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY. Between MR NEEAJ KUMAR (ANONYMITY HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 13 September 2018 On 9 November 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Sent On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June 2013 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR
More informationIN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA
[2013] CCJ 3 (AJ) IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA CCJ Appeal No CV 005 of 2012 GY Civil Appeal No 31 of
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/09461/2015 IA/09465/2015 IA/09468/2015 IA/09475/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House, London Decision & Reasons Promulgated
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 5 July 2016 On 12 July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR Between THE SECRETARY
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/44412/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE. Between.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/44412/2014 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 28 April 2017 On 3 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL CHANA. Between. MR NANTHA KUMAR AL SUPRAMANIAN (anonymity direction not made) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/37794/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On: 31 October 2014 Decision and reasons Promulgated On: 19 January 2015 Before DEPUTY
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/40597/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/40597/2013 number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House, London Determination Promulgated On 4 November 2014 On 6 November 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/13862/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/13862/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2018 On 8 February 2018 Before DEPUTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ARCHER. Between MRS ADEOLU TOLULOPE MORAH [M1] [M2] [M3] and
Upper Tribunal IA467462014; IA467532014; (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA467622014; IA467682014 Appeal Numbers: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 17 March 2016 On
More informationPolicy Terms & Conditions. Legal Expenses s - Property Disputes
Policy Terms & Conditions Legal Expenses s - Property Disputes Legal Expenses Property Disputes This Insurance provides legal expenses for property owners and is available as an additional cover; your
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 19 th January 2016 On 16 th February Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Number: IA/16498/2014 Appeal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 19 th January 2016 On 16 th February 2016 Before
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 31 March 2016 On 19 April Before
IAC-FH-AR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06365/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 31 March 2016 On 19 April 2016 Before
More informationRawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between SAIFULLAH RAWOFI.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Before LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR Between Given
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between LIDIJA DESPOTOVIC ANDJELA DESPOTOVIC (ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE) and
IAC-AH-VP/DP-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 th December 2015 On 6 th January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 26 January 2018 On 21 February Before. UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 January 2018 On 21 February 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More information- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE PHILIP GILLETT CHRISTOPHER JENKINS. The Appellant appeared in person, assisted by Mrs Stacey Walker, tax adviser
[16] UKFTT 0340 (TC) TC0098 Appeal number: TC//06380 Income Tax - Construction Industry Scheme Direction under Regulation 9() refused whether or not Condition A or Condition B in Regulation 9 is fulfilled
More informationIMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
SG (Stateless Nepalese: Refugee Removal Directions) Bhutan [2005] UKIAT 00025 Between: IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: 8 November 2004 Determination delivered orally at Hearing Date Determination
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 25 November 2014 On 31 December 2014 Oral Judgment given.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 25 November 2014 On 31 December 2014 Oral Judgment given Before THE HON. LORD
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE SOUTHERN LIFE ASSOCIATION LIMITED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) CASE NO 665/92 In the matter between COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE Appellant versus SOUTHERN LIFE ASSOCIATION LIMITED Respondent CORAM: HOEXTER,
More information` Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/04176/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
` Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/04176/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 28 July 2017 On 7 November 2017 Before DEPUTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 18 August 2015 On 9 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O RYAN. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 18 August 2015 On 9 February 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O RYAN
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/16164/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE Ms. G A BLACK. Between G S ANONYMITY ORDER MADE. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/10140/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at FIELD HOUSE Determination Promulgated On 26 th April 2017 On 8 th May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON. Between. SANDEEP SINGH (anonymity direction not made) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/04772/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Employment Decision & Reason Tribunal Promulgated On 14 June 2017 On 21 June 2017 Before
More informationAppeal Panel Hearing. Case of. Mr Alexander Banyard. Thursday 15 June RICS Parliament Square, London. Panel
Appeal Panel Hearing Case of Mr Alexander Banyard On Thursday 15 June 2017 At RICS Parliament Square, London Panel Julian Weinberg (Lay Chair) Ian Hastie (Surveyor Member) Helen Riley (Surveyor Member)
More informationSuspicious Minds: Contrivance in Housing Benefit. Paul Key explains a landmark case.
and legislative instruments that they may be open to interpretation, when applied to specific sets of circumstances. The regulations concerning contrivance and commerciality seem, however, to be particularly
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/10631/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/10631/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 20 April 2017 On 3 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING LORD JUSTICE AIKENS and LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 585 Case No: C1/2012/1950 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN S BENCH (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) MR JUSTICE HOLMAN [2012] EWHC 1303 (Admin)
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. on: On 15 April 2015 On 28 April Before LORD BANNATYNE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GLEESON. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/07021/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision sent to parties on: On 15 April 2015 On 28 April 2015 Before LORD BANNATYNE
More information1. Company/Organization/Individual named in the determination ( Appellant ) Name Address Postal Code
APPEAL FORM (Form 1) This Appeal Form, along with the required attachments, must be delivered to the Employment Standards Tribunal within the appeal period. See Rule 18(3) of the Tribunal s Rules of Practice
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/08382/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/08382/2015 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at UT(IAC) Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 18 July 2017 On 24 July 2017 Before UPPER
More informationThe Panel found Dr Brew s fitness to practise was impaired and determined to erase his name from the Register.
Appeals Circular A 04 /15 08 May 2015 To: Fitness to Practise Panel Panellists Legal Assessors Copy: Interim Orders Panel Panellists Panel Secretaries Medical Defence Organisations Employer Liaison Advisers
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONWAY Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, ISLAMABAD. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 15 January 2015 On 5 May 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONWAY Between ENTRY CLEARANCE
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 5 August 2015 On 14 August Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHAERF. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: VA/05452/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 5 August 2015 On 14 August 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN. Between AASTHA JOSHI SWADHIN BATAJOO (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 5 December 2017 On 12 January 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/14094/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at North Shields Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 April 2017 On 2 May 2017 Prepared on 27 April 2017 Before
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS. and SARAH GERALD
MONTSERRAT CIVIL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2003 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS and SARAH GERALD Before: The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, SC The Hon. Mr. Michael Gordon, QC The Hon Madam Suzie d Auvergne
More informationFLEMMING & SON CONSTRUCTION (WEST MIDLANDS) LIMITED. -and- THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS JUDGE KEVIN POOLE BEVERLEY TANNER
[12] UKFTT (TC) TC01900 Appeal numbers: TC/11/01493 TC/11/08678 Income tax construction industry scheme deductions from payments to subcontractors sums representing materials cost not to be subject to
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON. Between MR YAMINE DAHMANI. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 8 th September 2014 On 6 th October 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE FANCOURT Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 48 (Ch) Case No: CH-2017-000105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES CHANCERY APPEALS (ChD) ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Sheldon Court Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 21 st April 2016 On 14 th June 2016.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Sheldon Court Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 21 st April 2016 On 14 th June 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACT. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCCLURE
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Number: IA/27559/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 29 th January 2018 On 06 th February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationJUDGMENT. Sun Alliance (Bahamas) Limited and another (Appellants) v Scandi Enterprises Limited (Respondent) (Bahamas)
Easter Term [2017] UKPC 10 Privy Council Appeal No 0092 of 2015 JUDGMENT Sun Alliance (Bahamas) Limited and another (Appellants) v Scandi Enterprises Limited (Respondent) (Bahamas) From the Court of Appeal
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr E James Hay Partnership SIPP (the SIPP) James Hay Partnership (James Hay) Outcome Complaint summary James Hay has failed to properly administer
More information- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 11 November 2016
[2016] UKFTT 772 (TC) TC05499 Appeal number: TC/2012/08116 PROCEDURE Appeal against discovery assessment - Case management directions for progress of appeal Whether appellant or respondents should open
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/02277/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 2 September 2014 On 19 th January 2015.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/02277/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 2 September 2014 On 19 th January 2015 Before Deputy
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 30 June 2014 On 11 August Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Determination Promulgated On 30 June 2014 On 11 August 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE Between ENTRY CLEARANCE
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On: 19 October 2015 On: 06 November Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/17041/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Columbus House, Determination Promulgated Newport On: 19 October 2015 On: 06 November 2015 Before
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 11 September 2014 On 30 September Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ESHUN. Between
IAC-AH-VP/DP-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 11 September 2014 On 30 September 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY. Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER. and
IAC-AH-SAR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th October 2015 On 6 th November 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationPractical case points March 2017
Practical case points March 2017 In the last few weeks, the Court of Appeal has handed down three judgments with interesting practical consequences: Roland Stafford-Flowers v Linstone Chine Management
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE PATTEN and MR JUSTICE ROTH Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 717 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION, COMPANIES COURT MR RICHARD SHELDON QC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On: 9 September 2014 On: 10 October 2014 Prepared: 29 September 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAILER.
UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) APPEAL NUMBER: IA/35407/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Determination Promulgated On: 9 September 2014 On: 10 October 2014 Prepared: 29 September
More informationBEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. FRANK VOSPER AND VOSPER REALTY LIMITED Appellants
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 60 READT 081/15 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND an appeal under s111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 FRANK VOSPER AND VOSPER REALTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONWAY. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and DECISION AND REASONS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 January 2018 On 05 April 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONWAY Between THE
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA338292015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated Heard on 10 th July 2017 On 17 th July 2017 Prepared
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/49707/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/49707/2014 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 9 December 2015 On 18 January 2016 Before UPPER
More informationKAN (Post-Study Work degree award required) India [2009] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE SPENCER. Between KAN.
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal KAN (Post-Study Work degree award required) India [2009] UKAIT 00022 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Procession House (Field House) on 27 th April 2009 Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 25 November 2015 On 3 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43643/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision Promulgated On 25 November 2015 On 3 February 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More information- and - TRATHENS TRAVEL SERVICES LIMITED
Case No: 9PF00857 IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT Leeds Combined Court The Courthouse 1 Oxford Row Leeds LS1 3BG Date: 9 th July 2010 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL Between : LEROY MAKUWATSINE - and
More informationBaylan (Turkish ECAA identical applications) [2012] UKUT 83 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE STOREY. Between ENSAR BAYLAN.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Baylan (Turkish ECAA identical applications) [2012] UKUT 83 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 30 January 2012 Determination Promulgated
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 12 January 2016 On 27 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2016 On 27 January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Harmondsworth Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2015 On 12 February 2015 Prepared 12 January 2015.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Harmondsworth Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2015 On 12 February 2015 Prepared 12 January 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: AA/02956/2014 AA/02957/2014 AA/02958/2014 AA/02959/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Determination Promulgated On 13 November 2014 On 17 November 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PLIMMER Between
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG. Between MR ABDUL KADIR SAID. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00950/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Oral determination given immediately following the hearing
More informationEASTEND HOMES LIMITED. - and - (1) AFTAJAN BIBI (2) MAHANARA BEGUM JUDGMENT. Dates: 24 August 2017
Claim No. B00EC907 In the County Court at Central London On Appeal from District Judge Sterlini Sitting at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch His Honour Judge Parfitt EASTEND HOMES LIMITED Appellant - and - (1)
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/25465/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/25465/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 th April 2018 On 1 st May 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationEXCISE DUTY seizure of tobacco and vehicle reasonableness of decision to refuse restoration of tobacco and a vehicle appeal dismissed.
[] UKFTT 0231 (TC) TC04423 Appeal number: TC/13/08187 EXCISE DUTY seizure of tobacco and vehicle reasonableness of decision to refuse restoration of tobacco and a vehicle appeal dismissed FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
More informationIMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before : Mr H J E Latter, Vice President Mr F T Jamieson Mr M E Olszewski ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - CASABLANCA APPELLANT
H-AM-V2 Heard at Field House On 12 May 2004 Prepared 13 May 2004 RB (Maintenance income support schedules.) Morocco [2004] UKIAT 00142 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL notified: Date Determination 10 June 2004
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Between. MR MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) Appellant. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/31161/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 5 September 2014 Determination Promulgated On 11 September 2014 Before DEPUTY JUDGE
More informationJaff (s.120 notice; statement of additional grounds ) [2012] UKUT 00396(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Jaff (s.120 notice; statement of additional grounds ) [2012] UKUT 00396(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 21 August 2012 Determination Promulgated
More informationNumerous ingenious attempts to reduce or avoid unoccupied property rates
Numerous ingenious attempts to reduce or avoid unoccupied property rates Over the last year there have been a number of cases all concerned with attempts to reduce or avoid unoccupied non-domestic property
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAWSON. Between MR PAUL WAYNE STEPHENSON. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/02333/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Crown Court Determination Promulgated On 10 May 2014 On 15 th May 2014 Before UPPER
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03806/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationALBON ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING LIMITED. - and - Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL on 16 June 2017
[17] UKFTT 60 (TC) TC06002 Appeal number:tc/14/01804 PROCEDURE costs complex case whether appellant opted out of liability for costs within 28 days of receiving notice of allocation as a complex case date
More informationTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. -and- Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX Appeal Number: TC/2014/01582 THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS -and- Applicants C JENKIN AND SON LTD Respondents Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN Sitting at
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/12666/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/12666/2015 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 March 2018 On 11 May 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 16 December 2014 On 21 January Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/06728/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport Determination Promulgated On 16 December 2014 On 21 January 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More information