HM Revenue and Customs v Trustees of the Peter Clay Discretionary Trust

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Buxton
Judgment Date19 December 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] EWCA Civ 1141
Docket NumberCase No: C5/2008/1323
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date19 December 2008

[2008] EWCA Civ 1141

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Buxton

Case No: C5/2008/1323

[AIT No. AA/06180/2007]

Between:
Ma (Bangladesh)
Appellant
and
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Mr A Pipe (instructed by Messrs TRP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED

Lord Justice Buxton
1

This is a renewed application for permission to appeal from a determination of Immigration Judge Grimmett on 10 March 2008. That was, in effect, a complete rehearing of the process as the result of a previous determination having been set aside by the tribunal. The application is renewed by Mr Pipe on behalf of the applicant, permission having been refused on paper by Pill LJ.

2

This is a case in which Immigration Judge Grimmett did not accept a significant part of the evidence that was given before her by the applicant, and concluded from other evidence before her that he was a low-level member of his party of a sort that would not attract adverse interest, either by the opposing political party or by the authorities now in power in Bangladesh. I do not set out the details of the background because they are well documented in the various determinations and are well known to the applicant himself.

3

Mr Pipe, who has vigorously and clearly advanced Mr Rana's case throughout these proceedings, effectively criticises the determination of the Immigration Judge on three bases. He of course faces a significant difficulty in doing that, because it is not the practice of this court to review determinations on credibility by an expert tribunal such as Immigration Judge Grimmett, as we have been reminded recently by the House of Lords in the speech of Baroness Hale of Richmond in the case of AH (Sudan) v SSHD. However, out of deference to Mr Pipe and his client, I will go through the complaints that are made.

4

The first is that the Secretary of State accepted that serious incidents had happened to the appellant in 1998 and 1999, and also accepted that his business had been attacked in November 2006, though not on the basis that it was anything more than a random attack. Mr Pipe says that the Immigration Judge should have placed those matters more firmly in the scale when she was considering whether she could accept the account that the applicant gave her of events in 2006, which the applicant said were the precipitating cause of his coming to this country.

5

The difficulty about that submission is the length of time between the initial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Weekly Tax Update 11 April 2011
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • April 18, 2011
    ...rewritten to reflect the outcome of the Clay case - HM Revenue & Customs v Trustees of the Peter Clay Discretionary Trust [2009] STC 469.' www.hmrc.gov.uk/trusts/agents/news-080411.htm Business 4.1. Corporate capital gains – new degrouping provisions On 4 April 2011 the Government annou......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT