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.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered at the conclusion of the hearing, I allowed the appeal, on the following grounds, in summary:
(b) The determination also suffers from a lack of clarity in the findings which were purportedly made in respect of the second period, in [12]. In particular, the final part of this paragraph is couched in opaque terms and rehearses findings which are formulated as alternatives on a self-evidently key issue.
(c) I further consider that the FtT failed to apply the correct test, which the Court of Appeal has determined to be that the touchstone of �sole responsibility� is the continuing control and direction by the UK parent concerned in respect of the important decisions about the upbringing of the relevant child: see the convenient summary in TD � v � Entry Clearance Officer, Sana�a [2006] UK AIT 00049 , at [50]. In its determination, the FtT did not identify the relevant authorities (which were binding on it), did not formulate the governing test and did not purport to apply it.
For these reasons, the second and third grounds of appeal are established. I consider that, having regard to the conclusions which I have expressed above, the first ground of appeal, a discrete complaint of procedural unfairness, does not, logically, arise.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I enunciated the following case management directions:
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.