Home Secretary v. Ravichandran [1999]

Asylum
case went to ‘Special Adjudicator’.
Secretary
of State failed to use prescribed form of applying for leave to appeal his
decision.
Only
practical omission was absence of declaration of truth.
Court
held question to be asked is what legislation intended should be the
consequences of non-compliance.
Because
of undesirable consequences of requirement that made everything that happened
thereafter a nullity, provisions intended to be ‘mandatory’ would be few.
Must
look at whether there has been substantial compliance, and whether this is
sufficient.
Non-compliance
here was mere technicality.