![[2025] UKUT 00090 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
The Applicant’s application for judicial review and the grant of permission
The Applicant’s application for judicial review and the grant of permission
On 10th October 2023, the Applicant challenged the Respondent’s decision on three grounds. On 14th February 2024, Judge L Smith granted permission on grounds (1) and (2), but refused permission on ground (3). The Applicant renewed permission on ground (3) on 23rd February 2024. The parties agreed that we consider ground (3) on a ‘rolled up’ basis, although the Respondent maintains that ground (3) is unarguable.
We deal with each ground in turn, setting out the parties’ submissions, the law, and our conclusions. We do no more that summarise the gist of the submissions, which we have considered in full. We only discuss them to the extent that it is necessary to explain our reasons.
- Heading
- Decision
- The Respondent’s initial rejection of the Applicant for ACRS
- The Respondent’s decision under challenge
- The relevant passages of the ACRS and ARIPS
- The Applicant’s application for judicial review and the grant of permission
- Ground (1) - Interpretation of the ACRS and whether the Respondent misapplied it
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles - Interpretation of policy
- Conclusions on Ground (1)
- Ground (2) – the adequacy of the reasons in the Respondent’s decision
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles on sufficiency of decision-making reasons
- Conclusions on Ground (2) and the adequacy of the reasons in the decision
- Ground (3) – arguable perversity based on inconsistent decisions
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles on irrationality because of inconsistency of treatment and legitimate expectations
- Conclusions