David Waddle v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
1. This appeal came before me by way of a Strike-out request made by the administration of the General Regulatory Chamber (‘GRC’) on 24 July 2024 on the basis that the appeal lodged by the Appellant was incomplete in that the Appellant had not provided with his Notice of Appeal, filed on 10 March 2024, a copy of the written...
2 min de lecture · 378 mots
1. This appeal came before me by way of a Strike-out request made by the administration of the General Regulatory Chamber (‘GRC’) on 24 July 2024 on the basis that the appeal lodged by the Appellant was incomplete in that the Appellant had not provided with his Notice of Appeal, filed on 10 March 2024, a copy of the written record of the decision of the Respondent that the Appellant wished to appeal, a copy of which the Appellant had or could reasonably obtain, contrary to Rule 22(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended (‘the Rules’). 2. On 27 March 2024, along with Case Management Directions, the Appellant was advised of this non-compliance with the Rules. He continued to fail to comply. 3. 4 July 2024, further Case Management Directions were issued allowing the Appellant a further period of time to comply by 18 July 2024, warning him that any continuing non-compliance may result in his appeal being struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of the Rules. The Appellant has continued to fail to comply. 4. The Appellant, on 10/03/20245 lodged a Notice of Appel, this time in the correct form, but did not include a copy of the decision of the Respondent that he wished to appeal. He did, however, state his own interpretation as to the alleged import of that decision. This was not sufficient to comply with the Rules. The remedy sought by the Appellant was, seemingly, to be granted a third trainee licence to allow him to provide paid driving tuition until 15 April 2025 when he was to attempt his final Part 3 test. He maintained that due to preparations for his wedding, and a lack of availability of dates to undertake his Part 3 test, he was unable to undertake the test within the periods covered by two trainee licences that had been issued to him. 5. This appeal is struck out, with immediate effect, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of the Rules, the Appellant having been warned that this might occur, due to his failure to comply with Rule 22(3) of the Rules.
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor
Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major
Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)
Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited
ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...