Case No. UKUT-00156-(IAC)

[2019] UKUT 7 (TCC), where the Upper Tribunal held at paragraph 30 that:“30. … the other incidental matters in (c) are similarly limited to the UT’s functions in relation to proceedings that are properly before it. …”.53.It was therefore held that, if the Upper Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, such as because a person who is not a party has no standing to bring an appeal, then section 25 does not apply. The section does not confer the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction on the Upper Tribunal generally or in all circumstances. Rather, section 25 is a more restricted provision that allows the Upper Tribunal to exercise the powers of the High Court in relation to matters over which the Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction under other provisions, such as section 11 of the 2007 Act. 54.The applicant submits that section 25 does not empower the Upper Tribunal to make a “bring-back” order. The correct approach in this regard is said to have been foreshadowed in [2018] UKUT 00165 (IAC), where the Upper Tribunal held that an application for judicial review can be made to the Upper Tribunal to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision and to compel her to facilitate the individual’s return. That approach is said to be at odds with the route taken in the present appeal. 55.The respondent points out that the courts have consistently held that section 25(2) should be given its full, natural meaning: