SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v MDLULI [2014] ScotCS CSIH_68 (23 July 2014)

Lord Glennie failed to determine the substantive merits of the judicial review; Lord Stewart's interlocutor did not dispose of the merits, only the Eba test. No Lord Ordinary has adjudicated the merits. The reclaiming motion succeeds and the interlocutor of Lord Glennie is recalled.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2014] ScotCS CSIH_68
Parties: Respondent and Reclaimer: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Petitioner and Respondent: Thabo Jones Mdluli
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 23 July 2014
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion
Outcome: reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Lord Glennie recalled
Legal Topics: Permission to Appeal, Eba Test, Procedural Fairness

Immigration Law Judicial Review Permission to Appeal Eba Test Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent and Reclaimer

Thabo Jones Mdluli

Petitioner and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

1 Whether Lord Glennie determined the substantive merits of the judicial review
2 Proper application of the Eba test in Scottish immigration judicial review proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Lord Glennie recalled

Orders

Case remitted to a first hearing before Lord Stewart to proceed as accords

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.