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.
The appellants are nationals of the Philippines and are respectively the mother, who was born on 25 th October 1962, her husband, who was born on 3 rd August 1960, and their adult son, who was born on 26 th October 1996. They appealed against the decisions of the respondents taken on 27 th February 2016, refusing their applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Their appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Robinson at Hatton Cross on 24 th February 2016.
The appellants' appeal before the First-tier Tribunal took place on 24 th February 2017 before First-tier Tribunal Judge Robinson. The judge dismissed the appellants' appeal based on their Article 8 rights, but in doing so the appellants assert that he made errors of law.
There are three grounds are set out in the grounds of appeal and two of these were very helpfully expanded upon by Mr Murphy. Mr Murphy explained that at paragraph 32 the judge directed himself that for family life to exist in Article 8 terms, there must be what he described as being "emotional dependence" between family members but that of course is a clear error of law.
The second challenge was in respect of the judge's misdirection by applying the Tribunal decision in Gulshan (Article 8 - new Rules - correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 . As the grounds point out, Gulshan was wrongly decided and has since been overturned. Mr Murphy told me that they were his two best challenges although there was a third ground, but the third ground was, he believed, otiose and he said he had difficulty in understanding it, but, essentially it complained that the judge had failed to perform a proper proportionality exercise.
Mr Tarlow indicated that the first two errors of law were accepted by the Secretary of State, but they are not material to the outcome of the appeal. At paragraphs 36 to 40 of the determination, while the judge does not use the word 'proportionality', it is clear that there he has undertaken the proportionality exercise and concluded that the appellants' removal would be proportionate.
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.