Stevens v Gullis
[2000] 1 All ER 527, where Lord Woolf MR at pp.532-533 stated that the expert in question had: “… demonstrated by his conduct that he had no conception of the requirements placed upon an expert under the CPR ….. 19 It is now clear from the rules that, in addition to the duty which an expert owes to a party, he is also under a duty to the court.” 24. The requirements of CPR 31 also featured in
- ntroduction
- Error of Law
- Trafficking Decision
- The Asylum Refusal Decision
- documentary
- Decision of the FtT
- if he was a victim of trafficking this was very much at the lower end of the spectrum.
- I find as a fact that he ceased to be in a situation which might have amounted to being a victim of trafficking following his arrest in September 2012.
- Framework of this appeal
- Factual Matrix
- The Appellant’s family
- Preserved Findings
- oubt
- “ Assessment of facts and circumstances
- Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Russia
- United Kingdom
- R v SK
- Attorney General’s Reference Nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010
- Connors and Others
- France
- ewan) v
- R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
- Trafficking Issues in the IAC Tribunals
- Section 82, 2002 Act
- Section 84, 2002 Act
- Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith
- Afghanistan
- Secretary of
- Abdi
- Rantsev
- consider
- Ullah
- Amatewan
- Atamewan
- to Mogadishu) Somalia
- DECISION
- Bernard McCloskey
- Date:
- CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC), [23] – [27]
- National Justice CIA Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Company Limited
- Vernon v Bosley (No 2)
- Stevens v Gullis
- Lucas v Barking Hospitals NHS Trust
- Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department