AK (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1417 (09 December 2015)

AK (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1417 (09 December 2015)

Although the First-tier Tribunal's decision was poorly structured and generous to the respondents, it did not fail to consider the relevant statutory provisions or case law, and was not irrational or unsustainable; therefore, the second appeals test was not satisfied and permission to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1417
Parties
Claimant/applicant: AK (Zimbabwe) & Ors; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Deportation, Article 8 ECHR, Material Error of Law, Second Appeals Test
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Deportation Article 8 ECHR Material Error of Law Second Appeals Test

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AK (Zimbabwe) & Ors

Claimant/applicant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by applying a 'classic Article 8' approach instead of the statutory framework under the 2002 Act and Immigration Rules
  2. 2 Whether the decision was irrational or unsustainable so as to satisfy the second appeals test

Ratio Decidendi

Although the First-tier Tribunal's decision was poorly structured and generous to the respondents, it did not fail to consider the relevant statutory provisions or case law, and was not irrational or unsustainable; therefore, the second appeals test was not satisfied and permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused