Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


FP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2007] EWCA Civ 13

Case summary last updated at 07/02/2020 16:34 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case FP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Two people were not notified as to the dates of their asylum appeals hearings (the letters were sent to their old addresses) and hence they were absent from court when their hearings were held. Under the rules governing the tribunals this was permissible. CA said that this was in breach of rights under HRA and that the overall aim of the rules was to produce a fair trial, which the court breached. Hence the appeals of the asylum seekers were allowed. LJ Sedley doesn’t explicitly state which conception of the rule of law he is following but says that the rules are contrary to the rule of law due to lack of fairness in allowing a person’s hearing to go ahead in their absence when their absence is no fault of their own (in this case it was their attorney’s fault) and thus taking away their “right to a fair access to the courts”. The language of rights suggest a substantive conception but in fact access to courts is a foundation of Raz’s conception

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Constitutional Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Constitutional Law Notes

Constitutional Law Notes >>