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

On 21 November 2024 Dingemans LJ (as he then was) granted permission to appeal to this court, writing:

“I have granted permission to appeal because there is a compelling reason to hear this second appeal. This is because it raises the issue of the proper test to be applied on an appeal to the FTT from the respondent, in circumstances where the FTT concluded on the facts that the applicant’s deception had not caused the grant of citizenship. The UT took a different approach to the test on the appeal, relying on Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] AC 765. This appeal may therefore give the Court of Appeal an opportunity to consider the test to be applied on appeals to the FTT from a decision of the respondent where it may make a difference to the outcome. In Shytiv SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 770, the issue of the proper approach to appeals from the respondent had been raised but it was not necessary to decide it, see Shyti at paragraphs 88-95.

The issue of the test to be applied is being considered in Chaudhury v SSHD (hearing 4 December 2024), Kolican v SSHD (hearing 10 December 2024) and Daci v SSHD (hearing 12 December 2024), but it is not apparent whether the issue is as defined as in this case.

I have granted permission to appeal on all grounds because they overlap, and because, whatever the proper approach to the issue of the test to be applied, the applicant will need to confront the essential reasoning of the UT which was to the effect that the applicant applied for citizenship in a false name and so, whatever other factors were in play, the deception must have been material.” {emphasis added]