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.
There are two grounds of appeal. The first ground asserts that the judge failed to treat the best interests of the children affected by the appeal as a primary consideration. That obligation arises under Section 55 of the 2009 Act.
I reject that ground of appeal. I find that the judge had proper regard to the evidence given by the children. At [14] the judge recorded that,
the sponsor explained how [she and the appellant] had decided to give their relationship another go and as they already had children together this was supported by the children. The sponsor explained the appellant had never stopped playing a part in the lives of the children but their relationship began to redevelop and lead to their marriage in 2011.
taken into account the interests of the British children who are clearly settled in the UK at various stages of their education. They have lived in the UK with their mother and have clearly settled here. I have taken into account the settled life the sponsor has here and her work and family connections.
I accept that the principles enunciated in MM may be of general application. The problem for the appellant is that, even had those principles been applied in his case, it is difficult to see why he should have succeeded. At [16] the grounds of appeal say this:
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.