Quila & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1482 (21 December 2010)

Quila & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1482 (21 December 2010)

The application of Immigration Rule 277 to the appellants, both spouses of UK citizens in voluntary marriages, is unlawful because it constitutes a disproportionate interference with their fundamental rights to marry and to family life. The rule's blanket approach is not justified by the evidence, is only obliquely related to its objective, and its adverse impact on innocent couples is not proportionate to the policy aim. The exception for armed forces further undermines the necessity of the blanket rule. The court confines its decision to the facts of these cases and does not strike down the rule generally.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1482
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Diego Andres Aguilar Quila; Interested Party: Amber Aguilar; Claimant/appellant: Shakira Bibi; Interested Party: Suhyal Mohammed; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; 1st Intervener: Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE Centre); 2nd Interveners: Southall Black Sisters and the Henna Foundation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) – Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Proportionality, Right to Family Life, Right to Marry, Discrimination, Judicial Review, Immigration Rules, Forced Marriage
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Public Law Proportionality Right to Family Life Right to Marry Discrimination Judicial Review +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diego Andres Aguilar Quila

Claimant/appellant

Amber Aguilar

Interested Party

Shakira Bibi

Claimant/appellant

Suhyal Mohammed

Interested Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE Centre)

1st Intervener

Southall Black Sisters and the Henna Foundation

2nd Interveners

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) – Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the age restriction in Immigration Rule 277 (ban on entry for settlement of foreign spouses aged 18-21) is lawful and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the rule unlawfully interferes with the right to marry and right to family life under common law and the ECHR (Articles 8, 12, 14)
  3. 3 Whether the rule is irrational or discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The application of Immigration Rule 277 to the appellants, both spouses of UK citizens in voluntary marriages, is unlawful because it constitutes a disproportionate interference with their fundamental rights to marry and to family life. The rule's blanket approach is not justified by the evidence, is only obliquely related to its objective, and its adverse impact on innocent couples is not proportionate to the policy aim. The exception for armed forces further undermines the necessity of the blanket rule. The court confines its decision to the facts of these cases and does not strike down the rule generally.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • The application of Immigration Rule 277 to the appellants is unlawful.
  • Each appellant is entitled, absent other valid objections, to enter the UK as the spouse of a British citizen.