Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
Challenge to the validity of the Rules under the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’)
The Secretary of State is bound by s 6 HRA to exercise her powers under the Immigration Act
1971 compatibly with the ECHR. In a challenge to the legality of the Rules as such, as well as to
their application to individual cases, it is legitimate to follow the four stage proportionality test to
decide whether the Secretary of State has struck a fair balance between the individual and public
interests, taking into account the relevant factors identified by the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) and the significant weight to be given to the interests of children [52, 56].
The general provisions of the Rules envisage a two-stage process, the second involving a fact sensitive
consideration of any human rights issues outside the Rules. The duty of the tribunal
hearing appeals against any adverse decision of the Secretary of State is to ensure that the ultimate
disposal of the application is consistent with the ECHR. This means that there is no basis for
challenging the new Rules as such under the HRA [58, 60].
The principle of an MIR
The fact that the MIR may cause hardship to many does not render it unlawful . It has the
legitimate aim of ensuring that the couple do not have recourse to welfare benefits and have
sufficient resources to play a full part in British life. The income threshold chosen was rationally
connected to this aim  and the acceptability in principle of an MIR has been confirmed by the
Treatment of children
The Rules assert that the Secretary of State’s s 55 duty has been taken into account but nothing in
the relevant section gives direct effect to it . The Instructions in their current form do not
adequately fill the gap left by the Rules. They are defective and need to be amended in line with the
principles established by the ECtHR. The s 55 duty stands on its own and it should be clear from
the Rules themselves that it has been taken into account. In this respect the Supreme Court grants
a declaration that the Rules and the Instructions are unlawful .
Treatment of alternative sources of funding
There are restrictions in the Rules on taking into account the prospective earnings of the foreign
spouse or partner or guarantees of third party support when deciding whether the MIR has been
met. Although harsh, it is not irrational for the Secretary of State to give priority in the Rules to
simplicity of operation and ease of verification . Operation of the same restrictive approach
outside the Rules is a different matter and inconsistent with the evaluative exercise required by
article 8. A tribunal on an appeal can judge for itself the reliability of any alternative sources of
finance and it makes little sense for decision-makers at an earlier stage to be forced to take a
narrower approach . In this respect aspects of the Instructions require revision to ensure that
decisions are taken consistent with the duties under the HRA. It will be a matter for the Secretary
of State to decide if it is more efficient to revise the Rules themselves to achieve this .
Appeal by Surinder Singh route
In the light of the crucial finding by the tribunal that there were insurmountable obstacles to the
couple living together in DRC, any errors in the tribunal’s judgment did not after this long delay
require the appeal to be remitted for rehearing. Applying the correct test, the extreme interference
with family life would not be found to be justified on the facts of Surinder Singh route’s case 
It is unlikely they would further increase MIR as that would in effect amount to an outright ban on bringing a non-EU spouse to this country.secret.simon wrote:Press summary and judgment.
MIR and specific income threshold of £18,600 found lawful.
However, rules regarding treatment of children and of alternative sources of funding will need to rewritten.
Now that MIR has been found lawful by the Supreme Court, it is not improbable that the government may increase it while rewriting the Rules.
any update on the judgement?
mkhan2525 wrote:There are more reasons for the Court to either lower the income requirements or obolish it altogether because approximately 50% of the UK population does not meet the requirement and it can discriminate against women in particular. Compare that with the English language requirement, it can be achieved after spending some dedicated time learning the language although one should not be subject to passing an English test before they can live together in this country.
There are other positives that may come from the related cases such Agyarko on whether you have to satisfy the "insurmountable obsticles" test before a grant of leave outside the immigration rules can be granted under Appendix FM EX1b.