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.
             At [9] of the determination the judge set out his reasons for allowing the appeal. He stated:
             This however was not the end of the matter because at [10] the judge wrote:
"Although I allow the appeal, the application appears to be defective in ways not addressed by the respondent. The lawful marriage took place on 26 November 2021, and was registered on 18 May 2022. That is some time after the 'specified date' of 2300 on 31 December 2020. The application was made on 13 May 2022, which was after the 'required date' of before 1 July 2021. However, as the respondent has not taken these points, I cannot refuse the appeal on that basis. "
             The respondent appealed against Judge Rayner's decision arguing that:
"It is not in dispute that the application made under EUSS was on 13/05/22, nor is it in dispute that the marriage that the appellant sought to rely on to bring him within the definition of a 'family member ' and the requirements of rule EU14, took place on 26/11/21 and registered on 18/05/22.
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.