Kaur, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State For Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 818 (18 June 2004)

Kaur, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State For Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 818 (18 June 2004)

The Secretary of State acted within the scope of the concessionary policy and was entitled to require the specified forms of evidence. The refusal to depart from the policy was not irrational or unlawful, and the Secretary of State was not bound by the adjudicator's views on the concession.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 818
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Manpreet Kaur; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence Concession, Discretionary Leave to Remain, Fettering of Discretion, Consistency in Decision Making, Role of Adjudicator
Immigration Law Administrative Law Domestic Violence Concession Discretionary Leave to Remain Fettering of Discretion Consistency in Decision Making Role of Adjudicator

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manpreet Kaur

Claimant/applicant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State unlawfully fettered discretion by refusing to consider evidence outside the specified forms for the domestic violence concession
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to treat like cases alike in comparison to the case of Ms Kulwinder Kaur
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State was bound to follow the adjudicator's findings regarding the concession

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State acted within the scope of the concessionary policy and was entitled to require the specified forms of evidence. The refusal to depart from the policy was not irrational or unlawful, and the Secretary of State was not bound by the adjudicator's views on the concession.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for permission to appeal refused