ZP (South Africa) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1273 (02 July 2015)

ZP (South Africa) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1273 (02 July 2015)

The appeal should be allowed and time for appeal extended because, despite the significant delay, there was no prejudice to the respondent, the Secretary of State accepted the tribunals' decisions were flawed, and the merits of the appeal were strong; however, the Court of Appeal should not itself determine whether...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1273
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Zaheer Pochee (ZP); Respondent/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Extension of Time and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; extension of time granted; case remitted to Upper Tribunal for redetermination.
Legal Topics
Permanent Residence Rights Under EEA Regulations, Extension of Time for Appeal, Assessment of Evidence in Immigration Appeals, Directive 2004/38/ec Implementation, Principle of Continuity in EEA Rights
Immigration Law European Union Law Civil Procedure Permanent Residence Rights Under EEA Regulations Extension of Time for Appeal Assessment of Evidence in Immigration Appeals Directive 2004/38/ec Implementation Principle of Continuity in EEA Rights

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaheer Pochee (ZP)

Applicant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Extension of Time and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for an out-of-time appeal to the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal erred in law in their approach to the evidence and legal requirements for permanent residence under the EEA Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal should be allowed and time for appeal extended because, despite the significant delay, there was no prejudice to the respondent, the Secretary of State accepted the tribunals' decisions were flawed, and the merits of the appeal were strong; however, the Court of Appeal should not itself determine whether the evidence established continuous exercise of EEA rights, and the case should be remitted to the Upper Tribunal for redetermination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; extension of time granted; case remitted to Upper Tribunal for redetermination.

Orders

  • Extension of time for appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.