CA-2024-001892 - [2025] EWCA Civ 987

The critical paragraph in the FTT decision is paragraph 47. Mr Malik argues that what it means is that (a) the effect of deportation of the appellant on his son A would be “unduly harsh”; and that (b) other factors personal to the Appellant himself, in particular the fact that he has lived in the UK for 42 years constitute “very compelling circumstances over and above” the unduly harsh consequences for A. (Such other factors cannot be interpreted as including the Appellant’s physical or mental health, or the associations and friendships he has formed in the UK since the FTT had expressly rejected these as constituting very compelling circumstances at paragraph 30 of the decision.)

But that is not what paragraph 47 says. It is clear to me that it focuses entirely on A. Mr Malik submits that the phrase in the third line “given my findings above” is a reference to all the judge’s findings about the Appellant; but that sentence only refers to clear reasons why family life could not continue in Zambia. The same is true of the phrase “given we have been here before in the circumstances described at para 39 above”. This again refers to A’s difficulties when one or other of his parents is removed from the sphere of influence over him.

What paragraph 47 says, taken as a whole, is that the effect of deportation of his father on A would be “both unduly harsh and very compelling”. The same point is made on paragraph 48, where the judge concludes that the balance is against upholding the deportation order, by reference to “my finding [that] his son cannot reasonably and safely settle with him in Zambia and the likely consequences for his son”.