Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles

IMMIGRATION: Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Kashmiri v Same [2007] UKHL 11

Sep 29, 2018, 17:14 PM
Slug : huang-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-kashmiri-v-same-2007-ukhl-11
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 28, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87567

(House of Lords; 21 March 2007, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton under Heywood) [2007] The Times March 22

On an appeal where the claimant did not qualify for leave to enter and remain under the Immigration Rules, but relied on the family component of Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the Convention), the role of the appellate authority was to decide whether the decision refusing leave to enter or remain was unlawful as incompatible with the Convention right. It was not a secondary, reviewing function dependent on establishing misdirection, irrationality or procedural impropriety by the primary decision-maker. The authority's first task was to establish the relevant facts, on an up-to-date basis: particularly if the claimant had not been interviewed, the authority was better placed to investigate the facts, test the evidence and evaluate the nature and strength of the family bond. The ultimate question for the appellate authority, where family life could not reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, was whether the refusal, taking account of all considerations in its favour, prejudiced the claimant's family life sufficiently seriously to breach rights under Art 8. Where it did, the refusal was unlawful: there was no additional requirement that a case should meet a test of exceptionality, although it was expected that the number of claimants not covered by the Immigration Rules but entitled to succeed under Art 8 would be a very small minority.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from