Analysis
47.It is clear, on a straightforward application of the principles which we have outlined above, that an applicant for judicial review is under a duty to disclose all material facts which bear one way or another on the matters in issue. In age assessment proceedings such as these, that necessarily entails the following process in respect of an applicant’s social media and other such accounts.48.Firstly, as Ms Weston accepted, those representing the applicant are obliged to ascertain what social media and other such methods of communication are used by the applicant. 49.Secondly, as Ms Weston also rightly accepted before us, the applicant’s solicitors are required to consider those accounts with a view to ascertaining whether they contain any material which potentially furthers or potentially undermines the applicant’s case. A solicitor who does not do so is at risk of failing to provide the Tribunal with the ‘full picture’ which is required by the authorities considered above.50.That obligation is one which falls squarely on the applicant’s solicitors because, as Charles J stated in
- J U D G M E N T
- Judge Blundell:
- Relevant Background
- XX (PJAK - sur place activities - Facebook) Iran
- R (HB) v Derby City Council
- R (LS) v London Borough of Brent
- Submissions
- Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd
- Nimo (appeals: duty of disclosure)
- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Ltd
- R v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston
- Cocks v Thanet District Council
- Quark Fishing
- explain
- R (Citizens UK) v SSHD
- R (JS) v SSHD
- R (A) v London Borough of Croydon
- R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council
- R (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence
- Analysis
- R (DL) v Newham Borough Council
- (R (Houreau & Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
- R (Gardner & Anor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors
- Tweed v Parades Commission
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)
- XX (PJAK – Facebook) Iran
- Kerr v Department for Social Development
- R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent
