Conclusions
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim for judicial review is allowed and SIAC’s judgment will be quashed. The issues as framed by the parties refer to the interpretation of section 2D because SIAC interpreted section 2D in the judgment under challenge. As the provisions of sections 2C-2F are materially the same as those in section 2D, our conclusions will apply to reviews under those sections too. The parties should submit the terms of an agreed draft order reflecting our conclusions and dealing with any consequential matters.
- Heading
- Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the King's Bench Division) and Mrs Justice Farbey
- The issues
- Alternative remedy
- Appellate and review functions
- SIAC procedures
- Facts
- SIAC’s judgment and order
- Ignaoua
- C7: the judgment in SIAC
- C7: Court of Appeal
- Other case law
- Issue 1
- Purposive approach
- Historical context
- Access to justice
- Legislative policy
- Legal certainty
- Article 14 of the Convention
- The parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LON-000883 - [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)