Page 1 of 1

which UK immigration appeals decisions have legal effect?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:07 am
by Directive/2004/38/EC
I am not sure I fully understand which UK immigration appeals decisions can have legal effect in other cases. Can Papajorgji (EEA spouse – marriage of convenience) Greece [2012] UKUT 00038(IAC) be referred to in other immigration cases? Is it binding on UKBA outside of appeals (unless they appeal?). link: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC ... reece.html

I actually think the case is very straight forward and water-tight, but if UKBA were to appeal, who would they appeal to?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:08 am
by vinny
Possible warning for tribunal?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:36 am
by Directive/2004/38/EC
vinny wrote:Possible warning for tribunal?
I am not sure I understand.

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:05 am
by vinny
Click on the links for more details.

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:38 am
by Obie
I believe a distinction has to be made between a binding precedent in law and a binding finding.

I believe Vinny is correct to say, that a findings of a tribunal, only binds the parties to that determination, and not external parties, like the Social Services.

If future evidence came to light, then SOC can in future application refuse on the basic of past.

In law, a precedent set by a higher court is binding on the lower courts.

The decision cited by Directive, is of a binding nature to the First Tier Tribunal. Therefore it has to be followed by the FTT in future cases. It sets guidance which the FTT has to follow in future cases, and is therefore binding on them. They will err in law if they fail to have regards to it.

UKBA are not bound by it par se. But any decision they make contrary to it, is liable to be set aside by a court that is surbordinate to the Upper Tribunal.

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:07 pm
by Directive/2004/38/EC
Obie wrote:I believe a distinction has to be made between a binding precedent in law and a binding finding.

I believe Vinny is correct to say, that a findings of a tribunal, only binds the parties to that determination, and not external parties, like the Social Services.

If future evidence came to light, then SOC can in future application refuse on the basic of past.

In law, a precedent set by a higher court is binding on the lower courts.

The decision cited by Directive, is of a binding nature to the First Tier Tribunal. Therefore it has to be followed by the FTT in future cases. It sets guidance which the FTT has to follow in future cases, and is therefore binding on them. They will err in law if they fail to have regards to it.

UKBA are not bound by it par se. But any decision they make contrary to it, is liable to be set aside by a court that is surbordinate to the Upper Tribunal.
So I understand vinny's point that it is not binding on Social Services. Fair enough, though I think that is not relevant in this case.

But back to my case. So it sounds like it is ALSO not binding on UKBA directly outside of this case, but it is binding on further first tier tribunals. So if UKBA does not heed it, it will loose every case which is appealed and where the appellant mentions the case OR the judge knows about it. (This assumes that UKBA does not produce any additional arguments of law).

What is the relationship between UKUT and UKAIT?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:05 pm
by scorpio1
As Directive pointed out Papajorgji (EEA spouse) case, no doubt case clear every thing and pointed out many doubts but I think Judge look every appeal on its own facts.
On other hand example is Metlock case, even upper tribunal accepted (after ECJ decision ) direct relationship appeals but not in extended family members.
Relationship between UKUT and UKAIT is same as European Law Override National Law as far I understand. UKBA can easily defend themselves from FTT to UT but I think they are quite few examples if UKBA follow a decision aginst them from UT to HC etc, matter should fall within public policy, health or society related.

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:34 pm
by walex
I have read it all and it can only be used in accordance with the articles quoted as well as in relation to similar cases e.g spouses of European national; be it third country national or whoever it may concern. Upper tribunal decision is the highest if I am right. Also, you don't have to appeal if first tier allowed your appeal but you may as well appeal against first-tier decision if it was decided against your wish; (the same thing applicable to eco/ukba/home-office)