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 applications fell to be considered under HC 395 (as amended), Appendix A Table 4. Of particular relevance here are the Notes for Entrepreneurial Teams:
Two applicants, and no more than two applicants, may claim points for the same investment and business activity in Tables 4, 5 or 6 providing the following requirements are met.
(a) The applicants have equal level of control over the funds and/or the business or businesses in question;
(b) The applicants are both shown by name in each other's applications and in the specified evidence required in the relevant table; and
(c) Neither applicant has previously been granted leave as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant on the basis of investment and/or business activity linked in this way with any applicant other than each other if the same funds are being relied on as in a previous application.
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.