Wadia v. Secretary of State for the Home Department


Immigration Appeal Tribunal

[1977] Imm AR 92

Hearing Date: 11 May 1977

11 May 1977

Index Terms:

Practice and procedure -- Evidence -- Evidence relevant only to hoped for recommendation by adjudicator that Secretary of State make decision favouring appellant outside the immigration rules -- Adjudicator entitled to decline to receive such evidence.

Practice and procedure -- Witnesses -- Exclusion of witnesses from hearing room prior to their giving evidence -- Adjudicator's discretion in the conduct of proceedings at hearings -- Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972, r 28.

Evidence -- Relevance to the appeal -- Adjudicator entitled to decline to receive evidence relevant only to a possible recommendation that the Secretary of State make a decision favouring the appellant outside the immigration rules.


The extract from the determination which appears below is reported for the guidance it gives on the matters of practice and procedure which are indexed above. (The appellant's application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal was made under r 14(1)(c) of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972. There was no oral hearing of the application.) PANEL: D. L. Neve (Vice-President)

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL: The appellant, Khorshed Nadirshaw Wadia, a citizen of India, has applied to the Tribunal for leave to appeal against the determination of an adjudicator (Mr I. M. S. Donnell) dismissing her appeal against the refusal to vary the conditions attached to her leave to be in this country. She had been admitted to the United Kingdom as a visitor, but wished to be allowed to remain permanently. The appellant has submitted lengthy grounds of appeal.... Grounds 2 and 3 allege that the adjudicator has erred in practice, (a) in declining to hear evidence which was relevant only to the question whether a recommendation should be made to the Secretary of State, and (b) in excluding witnesses whom it was proposed to call before him. As to these grounds, the Tribunal considers (a) that the adjudicator was entitled to decline to receive evidence which had no relevance to the appeal before him, and (b) that he was entitled to exclude the witnesses before they had given evidence. This (exclusion of witnesses) is the usual practice before adjudicators, which they are entitled to follow by virtue of r 28 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972. n1 n1 The relevant provision in rule 28 is in the following terms: "... the appellate authority shall conduct the proceedings in such a manner as it considers appropriate in the circumstances for ascertaining the matters in dispute and determining the appeal." The remaining grounds (except for ground 10) relate mainly to matters of fact. Ground 10 submits that the adjudicator erred in refusing to grant an adjournment requested by the appellant. However, the record shows that the application for an adjournment was made by the respondent, not the appellant, although it shows that the appellant did not resist the application. In any event, the Tribunal considers that the adjudicator was quite entitled to refuse an adjournment. The result of this appeal depended entirely upon matters of fact. In the Tribunal's opinion the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and the Tribunal does not consider that he misdirected himself as to the law. Leave to appeal to the Tribunal is refused.

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.