[2025] EWHC 2219 (Fam)

Fecha: 26-Ago-2025

In reaching this decision I have not given any weight to F’s arguments that

93)

In reaching this decision I have not given any weight to F’s arguments that:

the issue of immigration was not raised squarely until Ms. Kumar’s Position Statement for the hearing on 1^st July 2025 and in her subsequent oral submissions. It is expressly stated in M’s Answer of 6^th June 2025 that she opposed the application on the basis that she had no legal basis upon which she could reside in Australia due to her immigration status;

the extent of M’s immigration concerns is set out in less than half a page in her first statement and therefore (as said by Ms. Best) is “almost certainly” an afterthought to the M’s ‘scattergun’ approach to seeking to defend this application, that she did not initially think immigration was a significant issue as she only sought for an immigration expert to be instructed once her other defences had fallen away. In my view a submission such as this gives way to a detailed consideration of the available evidence; and

M provided her personal documents (passport and birth certificate) and consented to criminal checks after the parties’ separation which she knew would provide her with immigration status in Australia, she did not have any concerns about potentially returning to Australia on this visa when she did this, and she knew that it was a visa in respect of which she was a secondary applicant. I accept (as Ms. Kumar submitted) that M was unaware that de facto partnership was required, and this was the visa that had secured F’s employment in the past and it was one that was required to secure his employment in the future. I do not go so far as accepting the submission that this was an example of F engaging in controlling behaviour towards M after the end of the parties’ relationship.

94)

I understand that there were some direct conversations between the parties (including a proposal and counter-proposal) about arrangements for a return between the two hearings in this case. I queried with Ms. Best when she raised the same whether the parties may have considered them to have been ‘without prejudice’ and was told by Ms. Kumar that the parties may have been at cross-purposes in their discussions in any event. In such circumstances, I did not permit further submissions on this issue and take no account of the fact that any conversations took place as it would be unfair for me to do so.

95)

I have observed above that I must also consider the various strands of M’s case cumulatively that this is particularly important in this case given (on M’s case) the uncertainty over her immigration position has had (and will continue to have) a negative impact on her mental health. I am particularly aware that this is made more acute by the fact that M will remain on F’s visa which will no doubt increase this impact.I also acknowledge the potential impact on M’s mental health if her visa is cancelled, she is unsuccessful in revoking this, and she therefore has a 10 - 18 month period when the appeal process timescales are underway. It is in context that I consider it of particular importance that (i) F accepts that if M is not admitted to Australia on her arrival (or indeed if her visa is subsequently cancelled and she is not permitted to remain in Australia and subject to any order of the Australian court) M and A should not be separated and should return to England and that he consents to my making an order to this effect. M’s acute - and understandable - concerns in relation to a potential separation from A are (subject to any order of the Australian court) therefore ameliorated; and (ii) M has the full access to the necessary psychological support services which she will have as result of F funding private medical/health insurance on her behalf.

96)

I also accept that during the period of any appeal M would be unable to depart Australia at all but this is subject to the discretionary grant of a bridging visa and I would hope that the Australian authorities would look sympathetically upon any such request given M is the primary (if not sole) carer of a young child and in such circumstances is likely to benefit from the support of her English family. However, as I have set out above, I consider the likelihood is M will be able to bring and conclude any application for permission to return permanently to England with A within this timescale.

97)

I also acknowledge that if F loses his current employment and is unable to find new employment (and therefore a sponsor) within a period of 180-day period his visa may be subject to cancellation due to non-compliance with his visa conditions and if this happens it will trigger the consequential cancellation of M and A’s visa. However, again, I consider M is likely to be able to bring and conclude any application for permission to return permanently to England with A within this timescale.