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 see no need for, and do not make, any order restricting reporting about this case.
This is an appeal brought by the Secretary of State against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondents, hereinafter "the claimants" against a decision of the Secretary of State acting for the Entry Clearance Officer to refuse them entry clearance to the United Kingdom.
Be that as it may, the Secretary of State said in her grounds that the Entry Clearance Officer did not have to apply the policy in a way that was helpful to the claimants and refused the applications.
The claimants appealed to the to the First-tier Tribunal. It was persuaded that a policy did apply and that the plain meaning of the policy was that the appeals ought to be allowed.
It may very well be that the published policy did not encapsulate the Secretary of State's intention. Nevertheless she said what she said and it is not an error of law on the part of the First-tier Tribunal to say that the Secretary of State's policy should have been applied and that the appeals should have been allowed. It may very well be the case that any other disposal would have been wrong. Mr Mills was not able to advance the arguments relied upon in the grounds.
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.