Ante Mikalic v The Director of Border Force

Decision date: 18 April 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 377 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: medium

This appeal concerns an application for permission to bring a late appeal against Border Force’s refusal (4 Feb 2022) to restore a vehicle seized after a search at Dover on 14 Oct 2021. The Tribunal found a 34‑day delay in lodging the appeal but accepted credible medical evidence of Covid‑19 and post‑Covid recovery as a good reason for most of the delay, and that the remaining days were satisfactorily explained. Balancing prejudice, the Tribunal admitted the appeal out of time and directed the Director of Border Force to file a Statement of Case.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

A significant but not necessarily serious delay can be excused where credible medical evidence explains most of the delay and the appellant otherwise acted promptly; in assessing length of delay the Tribunal will consider only the period for which the appellant is responsible. Applying that approach, the Tribunal admitted a 34‑day late appeal where illness accounted for the majority of the delay and the rest was adequately explained.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal noted that judicial notice may be taken of the greater likelihood of adverse effects of Covid‑19 on middle‑aged persons and of prolonged post‑Covid ill health, and observed that a paper hearing can be appropriate where logistical or international obstacles make video or in‑person hearings impractical and the file is sufficient.