Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 119 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2014] EWCA Civ 2
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Lord Justice Pitchford, Lord Justice Davis and Sir Stanley Burnton

Representation Rembert de Mello and Abid Mahmood (instructed by Douglas Wemyss Solicitors LLP) for the first claimant.
  Abid Mahmood (instructed by Douglas Wemyss Solicitors LLP) for the second claimant.
  Frances Shaw (instructed by Robinson Ravani & Co Solicitors) for the third claimant.
  Matthew Gullick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 20 January 2014

Catchwords

Immigration - Leave to remain - Maintenance requirements - Defendant Secretary of State refusing claimants leave to remain as Tier 4 (General) migrants for failing to meet maintenance funding requirements - Claimants contending defendant being required to give opportunity to remedy deficiencies in application on basis of letter introducing new practice and representation - First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) giving inconsistent decisions, including that one caseworker ignoring policy - Parties appealing - Whether letter introducing new practice - Whether defendant's decision being vitiated by caseworker ignoring policy - Whether defendant being required to give claimants opportunity to remedy deficiencies in applications before refusing them - Immigration Rules 1994 (HC 395), Pt 6A, appendix C.

The Case

Immigration Leave to remain. Three claimant foreign nationals were refused leave as Tier 4 (General) student migrants for failure to meet maintenance funding requirements. They contended that the defendant Secretary of State had been obliged to give them the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies in their applications before refusing them. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had given inconsistent decisions in the cases. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Secretary of State had not been required to give the claimants the opportunity of putting right the short comings in the specified information included with the application so as to show that they could meet the necessary requirements in order to obtain the relevant points for maintenance funding before refusing the applications.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.