Embden v Embden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Thorpe |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 55 |
| Date | 13 January 2011 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B4/2010/1890 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 55
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PROTECTION
(Senior Judge Lush)
Before: Lord Justice Thorpe
Case No: B4/2010/1890
The Appellant appeared in person.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Lord Justice Thorpe:
This is Mr Embden's renewed application for permission to appeal the order of Senior Judge Lush sitting in the Court of Protection on 22 July 2010. The applicant was dissatisfied with the outcome and duly filed an appellant's notice, sealed on 3 August. He erroneously ticked the box in section 4, indicating that he did not need permission to appeal. The assertion was disregarded by the office, who submitted the papers to Sir Mark Potter for his consideration. Mr Embden complains that the office should have notified him that they did not accept his tick-box answer. Maybe in a perfect world there is force in that observation but it is immaterial.
Sir Mark Potter, having considered the papers, refused the application saying that he could see no reasonable prospect of success in upsetting the reasoning of the judge's decision that none of the required grounds for revocation of the EPA had been established. I do not entirely understand why this application by a litigant in person was put on papers before Sir Mark rather than put into court for an oral hearing, but that hardly matters as it appears that Mr Embden has indicated his requirement for an oral hearing and this morning we have met and I have asked him to explain why I should depart from Sir Mark's provisional refusal.
He has made two points. The first is that the citation at page 4 of the judgment from the letter of Dr Jonathan Hare appears to insert, in the substantial paragraph cited, two sentences that Mr Embden says did not appear in the letter report to the GP. He has made that suggestion good by producing what appears to be the first page of the consultant's letter, and certainly the two sentences that were cited by the judge below do not appear in the paragraph. I do not know why but it does not seem to me that that curiosity justifies the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2018-09-21, EA/07118/2016
...case saw no reason to do so. Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce 8th September 2018 1 Amos and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 55 in which the Court of Appeal held that there was no procedural obligation upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make en......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2016-08-16, IA/17402/2015
...The judge erred in refusing to issue a direction to the respondent to make checks with HMRC pursuant to the case of Amos v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 55 and in refusing to adjourn the appeal to allow for such enquiries to be made. The first four grounds repeated the same point in different ways b......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-10-16, IA/42242/2014
...they are wrong. For example they suggest at point 9 that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to make an Amos direction (see Amos v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 55). It was not. The appeal was not about the Tribunal making investigations but about the claimant proving his case. It was incumbent upon ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2018-10-11, EA/10846/2016
...conferred on the respondent by S.36 of the ANA2006. Mr Mustafa sought in his skeleton argument to rely on the case of Amos v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 55. In that case the Court of Appeal noted that it was within the power of the Tribunal to direct the respondent to contact HMRC to obtain partic......