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.
“A case which has no realistic prospects of success...is a case with no more than a fanciful prospect of success. ‘Realistic prospect of success’ means only more than a fanciful such prospect.”
Of further note are the observations on the context of the jurisprudence on “anxious scrutiny” made by Lord Carnwarth of Notting Hill in MN v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2014 SC (UKSC) 183 at 194 (paragraph 31), in which his Lordship reiterated his observations in R (YH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 4 ALL ER 448 at paragraph 24 in the following terms:
“it is impossible to say that an adjudicator could not properly come to the conclusion that the claim is well‑founded; so the evidence’s bearing on the case is a matter for the adjudicator,and not for the Secretary of State.”
Dealing with another applicant considered in the same Court of Appeal determination, under reference to a newspaper article produced on behalf of that applicant, Buxton LJ at paragraph 26 noted that counsel for the Secretary of State had properly
“agreed that because the article, if genuine, changed the whole complexion of the case, the Secretary of State had to tread very carefully before rejecting it to the extent that an adjudicator was not to be allowed to pass judgement on it. “
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.