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.
No application has been made previously for an anonymity order in these proceedings and there is no reason why such an order should now be made.
The appellant in this case is the Secretary of State for the Home Department. However, for the sake of clarity I shall use the titles by which the parties were known before the First‑tier Tribunal, with the Secretary of State referred to as �the respondent� and Mrs Pathmanathan as �the appellant�.
The appellant lodged notice of appeal supported by a considerable amount of documentary evidence. There was firstly a substantial volume of evidence with regard to the contact between the parties. As to the financial requirement it was argued that the respondent had failed to consider all the documents that had been submitted and that the sponsor did in fact meet the requirements of the gross income threshold of �18,600.
The appellant�s appeal was heard at Hatton Cross on 23 October 2014 and in a decision promulgated on 7 November 2014 Judge of the First‑tier Tribunal Blandy allowed the appellant�s appeal under the Immigration Rules.
The respondent sought permission to appeal and this was granted by Designated Judge of the First‑tier Tribunal Garratt in a decision on 5 January 2015. His reasons for so doing were:
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.