Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
No points of law of general public importance raised in decision refusing family reunification
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court: (1) refuses leave to appeal decision refusing Georgian national judicial review concerning family reunification, on the grounds that the points raised were not of general public importance and would not have altered the decision; (2) in two out of three cases concerning family reunification decisions, orders that there were insufficient grounds to depart from the rule that costs follow the event, and awards costs to the State; and (3) in one of three cases concerning family reunification decisions, orders that the applicant be entitled to the costs of the substantive hearing and subsequent applications, on the grounds that it was only on receipt of the State’s submissions was it learned that a particular provision was not being applied.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – costs of legal proceedings and application for leave to appeal – law on leave to appeal - unsuccessful on four independent grounds - leave to appeal should only arise where the question certified would make a difference to the outcome – questions posed would not change the result - as not identified precise questions as such for the Court of Appeal – proposed issues - whether the proceedings were out of time – not decided - whether the applicant’s husband should have been an applicant in the judicial review application – not of exceptional public importance - whether the decision-maker erred in the manner in which the question of the feasibility of the applicant’s husband returning to Georgia was concerned, particularly by allegedly discounting the previous declaration of refugee status - false premise – fact specific - extent to which there is a loss of refugee status, by operation of law, on becoming a citizen - no doubt that needs to be resolved by recourse to the appellate courts – judicial comment that no need to interpret the qualification directive (Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted – not a point of public importance - failed to conduct a pointless exercise of revoking the declaration of refugee status of the applicant’s husband - exercise of discretion – fact specific - no cast-iron rules in relation to discretion – no point of law of exceptional public importance coming within the terms of s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 – whether these are test cases - insufficient grounds to depart from the default position – half costs because only learned on receipt of submissions that s. 47(9) of the International Protection Act 2015 was not being applied - no order as to costs up to the date of delivery of the State’s written legal submissions, but the respondent will be entitled to the costs of the substantive hearing and subsequent applications, again to be taxed in default of agreement.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
