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.
    The Appellants applied for entry to the UK under the Adult Dependent Relative provisions of the Immigration Rules. The applications were made on the 30 th of March 2022, they were refused for the reasons given in the Refusal Notices of the 6 th of December 2022. The Appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.
    The Appellants' appeals were heard by Judge Groom at Nottingham on the 19 th of September 2023 and dismissed for the reasons given in her decision promulgated on the 21 st of September 2023.
    The Appellants' sought permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal, permission was granted by Judge Monaghan on the 8 th of November 2023. The application was on the basis that Judge Groom had not addressed the provisions of paragraph ADR7.1 and had not properly addressed article 8 of the ECHR. Permission was granted on all grounds.
    At the hearing it was conceded by the Respondent that the Judge had erred and had not addressed paragraph ADR7.1 and that the error amounted to an error of law. In the circumstances it was agreed between the parties that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a re-hearing with no findings preserved other than that the relationship between the Appellants and the Sponsor is now accepted.
    The decision of Judge Groom contained an error of law and is set aside. The appeals are remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing not before Judge Groom.
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.