Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
       These written reasons reflect the oral decisions which we have given to the parties at the end of the hearing.
       Since our decision, we held a remaking hearing on 23 rd October 2023, which we had to adjourn, because it transpired that there was disagreement as to the precise nature of the appellant's application which the respondent had refused in her decision dated 15 th April 2022. That decision had considered and refused an application as a durable partner. Mr Atuegbe submitted that the appellant had not applied as a durable partner under the EUSS route, but as a spouse. Having issued further directions, it became clear that:
3.1.     the appellant had indeed made an application as a spouse rather than a durable partner under Appendix EU;
3.2.     the respondent had treated the application as being made as a durable partner;
3.3.     the appellant had appealed to the First-tier Tribunal in his IAFT-5 form, on the basis that his application had been wrongly considered as a durable partner, and he relied on his marriage to his wife.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.