![[2025] UKUT 029 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Submissions
Submissions
The parties’ counsel had both submitted written skeleton arguments and both made oral closing submissions. We are grateful to them for their assistance and intend no disservice in not setting out their arguments here. We deal with the main points of their submissions as part of our consideration of the grounds of appeal below.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- DBS’s decision
- Legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- The appellant’s evidence at this hearing
- Submissions
- Our decision on the appeal
- Mistake of law? - Proportionality
- Conclusion
- Tribunal Member Stuart-Cole
- In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it is appropriate to continue the Rule 14 orders made by the Registrar and to extend them as requested by the parties. We bear in min
- Open justice means that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 , [2020] AC 629 the Supreme Court explained the purpose
- Numerous cases have emphasised the link between open justice and the right under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights to freedom of expression and have provided guidance on the nature
- An order anonymising someone who would otherwise be named in court proceedings is an interference with the principle of open justice. As Lord Reed JSC described in A v BBC [2015] AC 588 at [23]: “It i
- Ordinarily, it is said that it is not unreasonable to regard a person who brings proceedings as having accepted the normal incidences of their public nature, including the potential embarrassment and
- In this particular jurisdiction, the considerations are somewhat different to those in the authorities we have mentioned, because this is an appeal in relation to the appellant’s inclusion on the barr
- Conclusions