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

The skeleton argument originally submitted on behalf of the Appellant suggested that the decision in Chaudhry may have been per incuriam but at the hearing before us Mr Berry rightly accepted that it is binding on this court. He also accepted that as a result of Chaudhry, as he put it, “things have moved on” since the decision of the FTT in the present case and that there was little to be gained by examining the FTT decision. He accepted also that the decision in Sleiman could no longer be relied on. However, he submitted that the reasoning of the UT in the present case was too compressed and was unsatisfactory. There was, he said, no analysis of what decision the SSHD would have reached even if no false representation had been made. He submitted that his client should at least be given the opportunity to argue his case again in the light of Chaudhry.