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.
This matter comes before me for consideration as to whether or not there is a material error of law in the determination before First-tier Tribunal (Judge Woolley) promulgated on 9 December 2013. The Tribunal determined the appeal on the papers and allowed the appeal against a refusal of a residence card as an EEA national.
For ease of reference I shall refer to the parties as follows � to the appellant as the Secretary of State and to the respondent, Eric Assabieh, as �the claimant�.
Consideration was given to Regulation 8(5) and the Secretary of State found no evidence to show a durable relationship.
In a determination [18] the Tribunal accepted the parties married by way of a customary marriage and that it was valid according to Ghanaian law. The Tribunal did not consider it necessary to go further to consider the French law to determine whether or not the marriage was legally recognised in France, the relevant EU State pursuant to guidance in Kareem (proxy marriages � EU law) [2014] UKUT 24 . At [20] the Tribunal also considered it unnecessary to consider if the claimant could show that he was an extended family member under Regulation 8(5)(EEA Regulations 2006).
The Secretary of State maintained that the determination showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Upper Tribunal decision of Kareem. This amounted to an error of law.
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.