Case No. UKUT-00330-(IAC)

case management review (“ CMR ”) hearings conducted by FtT Judges, spanning the period October 2012 to March 2013. On each occasion the decision taken was that the hearing of the appeal should be deferred having regard to ongoing Family Court proceedings involving the Appellant. (d) At the fourth of these CMRs the appeal was listed to be heard on 09 May 2013. This hearing did not result in the determination of the appeal. Rather, it yielded a somewhat unorthodox judicial decision purporting to require the Secretary of State to grant the Appellant a period of discretionary leave pending completion of the Family Court proceedings. The FtT has no power to make such an order. (e) The Secretary of State appealed against this decision. The Upper Tribunal heard the appeal on 21 August 2013 and, on 27 September 2013, it set aside the decision of the FtT and remitted the appeal to that forum, giving rise to the substantive dismissal of the Appellant’s appeal by a decision of the FtT promulgated on 26 November 2013 ( supra ). (f) Next, the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal, made timeously, was refused by a Judge of the FtT. (g) By its decision dated 11 March 2014 the Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal. Pausing, at this stage the appeal proceedings (in their totality) were of some 18 months’ vintage. Regrettably, three further years were to elapse until the listing of the appeal before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia and me. (h) The initial listing of the appeal before the Upper Tribunal was on 02 October 2014. The appeal was delisted in somewhat opaque circumstances, one feature of which was that the Appellant and his counsel attended the relevant venue on the scheduled date only to learn of this development. (i) The manifestly unjustifiable delay which has characterized this appeal throughout continued. The appeal was not relisted until 30 April 2015. By its decision promulgated on 29 May 2015 the Upper Tribunal set aside the decision of the FtT. The Upper Tribunal did not proceed to remake the decision. No explanation for this is provided in its decision. It directed that the appeal be relisted in the Upper Tribunal “ on the next available date ”. It would appear that no proper regard was had to either the Upper Tribunal Practice Directions relating to the remaking of FtT decisions or the vintage of the appeal which, by this stage, was approaching its third anniversary. (j) The appeal was next listed in the Upper Tribunal on 07 September 2015. A hearing ensued. However, this did not give rise to a judicial decision. Instead, on 01 October 2015 written directions were issued requiring the parties’ representatives to make further written submissions relating to the significance of the decision in