Hippolyte, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hippolyte, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Secretary of State failed to consider exercising her discretion to waive the continuous residence requirement under the Windrush Scheme, breaching the non-fettering principle. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court 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 was quashed and remitted for lawful reconsideration.

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
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Windrush Scheme, Indefinite Leave to Remain, Non Fettering Principle, Discretionary Powers, Judicial Review, Leave Outside the Immigration Rules
Immigration Law Administrative Law Public Law Windrush Scheme Indefinite Leave to Remain Non Fettering Principle Discretionary Powers Judicial Review +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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State 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

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State failed to consider exercising her discretion to waive the continuous residence requirement under the Windrush Scheme, breaching the non-fettering principle. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court 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 was quashed and remitted for lawful reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Decision refusing ILR under the Windrush Scheme quashed.
  • Matter remitted to the Secretary of State for lawful reconsideration.