P, R (On the Application Of) v Upper Tribunal
Permission to apply for judicial review is granted because there were serious errors of law in failing to consider the best interests of the child and the right to family life, and the reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal were inadequate.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: P; Defendant: Upper Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review (cart Application) / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- Permission to apply for judicial review granted
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Best Interests of the Child, Article 8 ECHR (right to Family Life), Section 55 BCIA, Family Reunion Policy
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
P
Claimant
Upper Tribunal
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (cart Application) / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in refusing permission to appeal the First-tier Tribunal's decision
- 2 Whether the best interests of the child (first claimant) were properly considered under section 55 BCIA and ZH (Tanzania)
- 3 Whether the right to family life under Article 8 ECHR was adequately addressed
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to apply for judicial review is granted because there were serious errors of law in failing to consider the best interests of the child and the right to family life, and the reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal were inadequate.
Court Disposition
Permission to apply for judicial review granted
Orders
- Permission to apply for judicial review is granted to the claimants.
- Expedition is directed with a not before date of 15 January 2013 for the hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment