Obie wrote:I believe a distinction has to be made between a binding precedent in law and a binding finding.
I believe Vinny is correct to say, that a findings of a tribunal, only binds the parties to that determination, and not external parties, like the Social Services.
If future evidence came to light, then SOC can in future application refuse on the basic of past.
In law, a precedent set by a higher court is binding on the lower courts.
The decision cited by Directive, is of a binding nature to the First Tier Tribunal. Therefore it has to be followed by the FTT in future cases. It sets guidance which the FTT has to follow in future cases, and is therefore binding on them. They will err in law if they fail to have regards to it.
UKBA are not bound by it par se. But any decision they make contrary to it, is liable to be set aside by a court that is surbordinate to the Upper Tribunal.
So I understand vinny's point that it is not binding on Social Services. Fair enough, though I think that is not relevant in this case.
But back to my case. So it sounds like it is ALSO not binding on UKBA directly outside of this case, but it is binding on further first tier tribunals. So if UKBA does not heed it, it will loose every case which is appealed and where the appellant mentions the case OR the judge knows about it. (This assumes that UKBA does not produce any additional arguments of law).
What is the relationship between UKUT and UKAIT?
