Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 201
Shahanas Kanhirakandan v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
6 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1298
Court of Appeal
Someone appealed because a judge didn't see all the evidence in their case. A higher court said the first judge made a mistake by not seeing important evidence. They sent it back to be decided again with all the evidence this time.
Key Facts
- •Shahanas Kanhirakanadan (appellant) appealed a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which overturned a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision granting him leave to remain in the UK.
- •The FTT found the Secretary of State (respondent) hadn't proven the appellant's dishonesty, a key factor in the respondent's refusal of his leave to remain application.
- •The UT found the FTT's decision was based on a material mistake of fact, due to the FTT's unawareness of previous judicial review proceedings and evidence related to allegations of dishonesty.
- •The appellant's appeal concerns whether the FTT's findings on dishonesty should be preserved for a rehearing.
- •The appellant's immigration history involved previous applications where he claimed earnings from a company later found to be a sham.
Legal Principles
Material mistake of fact can be a ground for challenge in an appeal on a point of law, particularly when parties share an interest in achieving a correct result.
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department; joined with R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49
In considering whether to admit new evidence on appeal, Ladd v Marshall principles apply, but can be departed from in exceptional circumstances where justice requires.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; E v Secretary of State for the Home Department
If a tribunal finds an appellant did not cheat, the Secretary of State should act as if the error hadn't been made, potentially granting leave.
Ahsan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2009
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The UT was entitled to admit the previously unavailable evidence and overturn the FTT's findings on dishonesty because they were based on a material mistake of fact amounting to an error of law. The appellant's knowledge of the evidence and the potential for an unfair advantage contributed to this decision.
Similar Cases
Sufia Begum v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 46 (IAC)
Ilirjan Hima v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 680
ASO (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1282
KA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 248 (AAC)