![[2024] UKUT 00281 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
The Respondent’s case
The Respondent’s case
The Respondent argues that, as with ground (2) discussed later, although the Respondent stated that she had not conducted an assessment of genuineness as detailed in Paragraph 245DD(k), in reality, she had, as the remainder of the impugned decisions made clear. Moreover, to suggest that Table 5 and Paragraph 48 of Annex A entitled an applicant to score points automatically, without consideration of the genuineness of the business activity, ignored the provision of Paragraph 245DD(n), to which I refer in the discussion on ground (2).
- Heading
- Where a rule permits, but does not require, consideration of certain matters, as in R (Khatun) and others v London Borough of Newham [2004] EWCA Civ 55 , a useful related assessment is that proposed b
- Judge Keith
- Background
- The decision under challenge
- The application for administrative review
- The administrative review challenge
- The Applicant’s grounds of challenge and the Response
- Ground 1
- The Respondent’s case
- Ground 2
- The Respondent’s case
- Ground 3
- The Respondent’s case
- Materiality of any public law error
- The Respondent’s case
- The Law
- Relevant statutory provisions
- Conclusions - Grounds (1) and (2)
- Conclusions - Ground (3)
- Conclusions - materiality
- Conclusions