CA-2024-001138 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1337

By the time the case came on for hearing before this court had given judgment in Chaudhry [2025] EWCA Civ 16; [2025] KB 395 and the Supreme Court had given judgment in U3 v SSHD [2025] UKSC 19; [2025] 2 WLR 1041.Mr Berry KC, Mr McWatters and Mr Bahja submitted a skeleton argument reducing the grounds of appeal to the following:-

“Ground 1: the UT erred in failing to consider whether the FTT’s findings were perverse; and,

Ground 4: in its reconsideration decision the UT erred in remaking his decision.”

The skeleton argument of Ms Smyth KC and Ms Wakeman in response argued that the Appellant’s case departs from and in some respect expands the arguments presented to the UT, in so far as his team argue for the first time that (a) it is incorrect to apply a public law standard to the causation issue, that is to say the question of whether citizenship was obtained “by means of” fraud or false representation; or (b) alternatively, that even if the UT was right to apply a public law standard it erred are drawing distinctions between varying degrees of probability as to what would have happened in the absence of the fraud. We did not consider that the Appellant should be required to make any formal amendment to the grounds of appeal. There has been at least a change of emphasis in the presentation of the Appellant’s case but nothing requiring new evidence of fact and counsel for the Secretary of State were well able to respond to the points raised. The central issue remains the same.