KM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1682 (29 November 2005)

KM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1682 (29 November 2005)

Although the Tribunal initially applied the Wednesbury test, it subsequently made its own assessment of proportionality under Article 8 ECHR. Therefore, any error of law was not material to the outcome, and the Tribunal's decision stands.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1682
Parties
Appellant: KM; Appellants: Mando & Ors; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Proportionality, Deportation, Error of Law, Judicial Review
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Article 8 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Proportionality Deportation Error of Law Judicial Review

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KM

Appellant

Mando & Ors

Appellants

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal applied the correct legal test for proportionality under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether an error of law in applying the Wednesbury test was material to the outcome
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's own assessment of proportionality was sufficient under the law as clarified in Huang

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal initially applied the Wednesbury test, it subsequently made its own assessment of proportionality under Article 8 ECHR. Therefore, any error of law was not material to the outcome, and the Tribunal's decision stands.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal of Mando & Ors dismissed following ZT v Secretary of State for the Home Department
  • Appeal of KM dismissed; no grounds for remitting the matter to the Tribunal