Hippolyte, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1493 (21 November 2025)

Hippolyte, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1493 (21 November 2025)

The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to consider exercising her discretion to waive the continuous residence requirement under the Windrush Scheme, breaching the non-fettering principle. The High Court Judge erred in refusing relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as there was no evidential basis to conclude it was highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different. The decision must be quashed and remitted for lawful reconsideration.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1493
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Jeanell Hippolyte; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Windrush Scheme, Indefinite Leave to Remain, Non Fettering Principle, Judicial Review, Discretionary Powers, Section 31(2 A) Senior Courts Act 1981
Immigration Law Administrative Law Public Law Windrush Scheme Indefinite Leave to Remain Non Fettering Principle Judicial Review Discretionary Powers +1 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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanell Hippolyte

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State unlawfully failed to consider exercising discretion to waive the continuous residence requirement under the Windrush Scheme
  2. 2 Whether relief should be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the basis that the outcome would not have been substantially different

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to consider exercising her discretion to waive the continuous residence requirement under the Windrush Scheme, breaching the non-fettering principle. The High Court Judge erred in refusing relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as there was no evidential basis to conclude it was highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different. The decision must be quashed and remitted for lawful reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Secretary of State quashed
  • Matter remitted to the Secretary of State for lawful reconsideration