Pat & Co Legal Practitioners v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

Background:

Pat & Co Legal Practitioners, the Appellant (“A”) herein, applied for registration under Section 84(2) (a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, (“the Act”) on the 13^th September 2006.

The A’s registration was dealt with by way of correspondence between the parties from the initial request for information by A on the 6^th April 2005. The application proceeded properly but slowly for many reasons which do not relate to subject of this appeal, inter-alia a number of tragic deaths in the family of A.

At all material times the Respondent (“R”) set out the requirements of registration. Of particular relevance was the requirement to provide professional indemnity insurance (“PII”). Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 5 of the Act applies the Commissioner’s Code of Standards to any person providing immigration advice or services. Code 67 states: “All advisers must have current and adequate professional indemnity insurance cover in respect of any civil liability that may be incurred in relation to their work and advice services. The OISC will not grant authorisation to practice to any adviser without such insurance being in place.” R maintains that A has never provided evidence of this insurance. It is agreed between the parties that for the purpose of this appeal, this is the issue joined between them. Ultimately the decision to refuse registration was sent to A by recorded delivery in a letter dated 31^st January 2008. This letter sets out clearly the reasons for the decision of R to refuse registration to A and is placed at pages 1 -6 of the Bundle provided by R for this hearing. The undated Notice of Appeal of that decision is placed at pages 7 – 8 of the hearing bundle. There is no dispute that this Notice of appeal was within time.

The Issues:

The Evidence:

Patricia Eldan gave evidence on behalf of A. She argues that on or about the 19^th November 2007, she instructed the HSBC and in particular an employee therein called Barry to send a Fax copy of her PII certificate to R. She then left this country for her mothers’ funeral. She returned on the 6^th December 2007. On the 10^th December 2007 she learned in a telephone call from R that the Fax had never been received. She maintained that she then sent a copy of her PII to R by recorded delivery on the 10^th December 2007.

The A presented no evidence in support of the alleged Fax from HSBC or of any recorded delivery to R at any material time. Ms. Eldan was not in a position to offer this Tribunal any evidence whatsoever that any evidence of her PII was received by R In fact Ms. Eldan provided no evidence of any PII that was allegedly in place at any material time.

The Tribunal heard the evidence of the case workers employed by R and engaged in this application. Quite simply they maintain there has never been any evidence produced to R of any PII cover for A at any material time throughout the instant application or in deed since.

The Decision:

The Tribunal refuses this appeal.

Reasons:

There is no evidence that the requisite Professional Indemnity Insurance was