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.
For the Respondent: Mr R Singer, Counsel instructed by Hamlet Solicitors, London
There was no dispute before Judge Chamberlain that the appeal could not succeed under the Immigration Rules as the Sponsor was paid in cash he was required to provide specified evidence as required by Appendix FM-SE, which he was unable to do.
On 4 November 2014 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal P J C White granted permission thus the matter comes before me.
For the Secretary of State, Mr Avery submits that there was no proper basis for the Judge to depart from the Immigration Rules and that there is no authority to suggest that Appendix FM-SE was not Article 8 compliant. The judge was not entitled to use Article 8 as a general dispensing power. I agree with the submission that the Judge was not entitled to use Article 8 as a general dispensing power; the question in this case is whether that is what the judge did.
Mr Singer for the Respondents produced a lengthy and helpful Rule 24 response. Reference is made to numerous authorities.
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.