header-logo header-logo

21 February 2014
Issue: 7595 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] All ER (D) 94 (Feb), [2014] EWCA Civ 88

Section 96(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was directed to material that could have been raised, but had not been, on an actual or possible appeal against an earlier decision. On an appeal, the appellant relied upon his grounds of appeal and upon his evidence in support of such grounds. It was not surprising, therefore, to find that if a person had failed to appeal or had lost an appeal, he should not be permitted to adduce evidence that he could have relied upon on such an appeal, but had not.

Sub-sections (1) and (2) of s 96 of the Act dealt with different subjects and it was not surprising that Parliament should have used a flexible word such as “matter” to encompass the different material that might have been relied upon in each case. Nor was it surprising that when enacting the amended s 96 it had moved away from the word “ground” and had

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll