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.
I have anonymised this judgment given that it involves two children and their identities should be protected. Nothing must be published which would identify the children or their family.
(a) The decision of the respondent to refuse to grant leave to remain is contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 read together with article 8 of the ECHR as it constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life and private life. In particular �
(i) The decision of the respondent amounts to a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life of the applicants as it is unreasonable to expect the applicants to relocate to Ukraine in order to continue to enjoy a family life together.
(ii) The decision of the respondent amounts to a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private life of each of the applicants in its relocation to Ukraine, and the consequent disruption of all existing social ties in Northern Ireland, is not necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve the legitimate state aims of protecting the rights of others and economic well-being.
(iii) In relation to the third and fourth applicants namely the children, the decisions of the respondent amount to a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life as it has failed to address whether the best interests of the children lie with the family remaining together in the United Kingdom or with relocation to Ukraine.
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.