Dogan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1673 (28 October 2003)

Dogan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1673 (28 October 2003)

Section 103(2) does not provide a right of appeal where support is ended due to breach of a condition imposed at the time of grant; it only applies where support, once granted, is stopped prematurely for reasons other than those originally contemplated.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1673
Parties
Appellant/interested Party: Ahmet Dogan; First Respondent/claimant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Respondent/defendant: Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) From Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum Support, Statutory Interpretation, Appeals Process, Dispersal Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmet Dogan

Appellant/interested Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Respondent/claimant

Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) From Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 What is the correct construction of Section 103(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 regarding the right of appeal when support is stopped?
  2. 2 Does the ending of support for breach of a condition imposed under Section 95 give rise to a right of appeal under Section 103(2)?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 103(2) does not provide a right of appeal where support is ended due to breach of a condition imposed at the time of grant; it only applies where support, once granted, is stopped prematurely for reasons other than those originally contemplated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No application for costs; appellant's costs subject to detailed assessment