Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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