CA-2024-001818 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1273

I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to consider limb (ii). Even if the Claimant were to succeed on it the outcome would in substance be no different from what he has already achieved on ground 1 – that is, a reconsideration by the Secretary of State of her policy as regards family reunion for child refugees. Mr Husain said that there was a difference in as much as ground 1 established only that the Secretary of State would have to conduct a section 55 exercise, which she had avowedly failed to do, whereas his case on limb (ii) identified a number of particular matters – essentially the matters set out in the justification schedule – which it is said should have been sufficient to compel a reconsideration. But that is not a point of substance. In conducting the necessary section 55 exercise the Secretary of State will be obliged to take into account any evidence that she reasonably believes is relevant to the balance between the best interests of children in the UK who are affected by her current policy and the countervailing considerations which she identifies. That may include some or all of the evidence relied on by Mr Husain, though that may depend on the extent to which it remains relevant now. But nothing will be gained by the Court embarking on the artificial exercise of assessing whether that evidence would have required her to undertake a reconsideration at some earlier date.

I would dismiss ground 3.