Dawrani (Judicial discretion - late evidence - sanction) Afghanistan [2026] UKUT 151 (IAC) (09 February 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal held that, in deciding whether to admit late-served evidence, judges must apply the principles in Maleci and the November 2024 SPT Practice Direction, and that relevant evidence is no longer automatically admitted simply because it exists. It upheld the approach of excluding a belated 586-page appellant bundle where there was no timely application, no adequate explanation for non-compliance, and no clear showing that the material was necessary.

Key points

• Parties: Soraya Dawrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department; an Article 8 entry-clearance appeal from Afghanistan-related risk allegations.
• Holding: exclusion of the late 586-page bundle was a proper exercise of judicial discretion; the appeal was heard on the stitched bundle already served.
• Reasoning: the appellant gave no adequate explanation for missing directions, did not seek an extension of time, and did not show why the new material was needed.
• Procedural principle: late evidence is assessed under Maleci and the SPT Practice Direction; admission is not automatic even if evidence is relevant.
• Sanction angle: judges may use procedural sanctions, including excluding evidence, adjourning, or considering wasted costs, where fair and just.
• Substantive issue: the case remained an Article 8 immigration appeal; the family reunion rules were said not to apply because the sponsor did not have protected status.

Why it matters

This is a clear tribunal statement that procedural default can justify exclusion of late material, which matters for sanctions-style compliance cultures where deadlines, notice, and case management discipline are treated as enforceable controls. It signals higher litigation risk for parties who assume material will be admitted on relevance alone, especially where the other side would be prejudiced by late service.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, parties must treat tribunal directions and practice directions as mandatory, seek extensions before filing late material, and provide a detailed chronology and necessity explanation if non-compliance occurs. Respondents can rely on this authority to resist ambush evidence, while appellants must front-load evidence or risk exclusion and having their case determined on the existing record.