There was a bit of history to the case, in that a previous adjournment had been granted and one of his previous representatives, Freemans, had dumped the appellant because they took the view that there was insufficient merit in the case to justify public funding. The Immigration Advisory Service declined to take the case on but referred the client to Harehills and Chapeltown law centre, who for reasons unexplained abandoned the client the day before the hearing.
The case should make immigration judges think twice about going ahead where it appears an appellant has been badly let down by a representative. However, the case most certainly is not authority for failure to adjourn always amounting to an error of law. It is a lesson in the importance of showing that an error is material, because what swung the case was that the new representatives, Wilson and Co, had managed to find evidence that might lead to the appeal being allowed, but which the appellant had not had an opportunity to present to the tribunal.
By the by, it sounds like an interesting substantive case. It concerns whether the gender reassigned (I think that means those who have a sex change in old speak, which is presumably now politically incorrect in some way) might amount to a particular social group in Iran.