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 Appellant appealed with permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge PJM Hollingworth on 13 February 2015 against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Froom who had dismissed the Appellant-�s appeal against the refusal of his entry clearance application made on 5 December 2012 under Appendix FM as a dependant relative and on human rights grounds (Article 8 ECHR family life) in a determination promulgated on 22 September 2014.
Permission to appeal was granted because it was considered that it was arguable that the judge had erred in his factual finding by considering the -�historic injustice-� issue only at the stage of proportionality.
Standard directions were made by the tribunal, indicating that the appeal would be redecided immediately if a material error of law were found. A rule 24 notice had been filed on the Respondent-�s behalf, opposing the onwards appeal.
Ms Savage for the Respondent relied on the rule 24 notice. The judge had taken a proper approach. The Appellant was simply seeking to attack the judge-�s findings of fact which had been open to him on the evidence. There was no error of fact. NL and SL (Nepal) [2013] EWCA Civ 8 was relevant. The determination should stand.
In reply, Mr Howells contended that NL and SL (above) was not relevant and could not save the determination.
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.