[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)

Mujaj (Deprivation: children’s best interests)

Heard at Field House

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Promulgated on 25 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUDDICK

Between

FLAMUR MUJAJ AND ERMIRA MUJAJ

(ANONYMITY ORDER LIFTED)

Appellants

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellants: Mr T. Wilding, instructed by AJ Jones Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr E. Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

In a deprivation appeal affecting children, a tribunal must approach the question of the children’s best interests in the following way:

(i) First, it must identify whether the best interests of any child were relevant to any issue in the appeal. In a deprivation decision, the section 55 duty is mainly relevant to the exercise of discretion and to the article 8 assessment. Kolicaj [2025] EWCA Civ 10 at [37];

(ii) Second, it must identify which of those issues are to be determined by the tribunal according to public law principles;

(iii) Third, it must identify all of the respondent’s reasons for her decision, whether in the initial deprivation decision or in a subsequent review or reconsideration, and take them into account where it is procedurally fair to do so;

(iv) Fourth, with regard to those issues that are to be determined according to public law principles, it must determine whether the respondent complied with her section 55 duty;

(v) Fifth, if she did not, it must then decide whether the error was material and requires the decision to be set aside; and

(vi) Sixth, when deciding the issues that are for the tribunal to decide for itself, it must make its own findings about the best interests of any relevant child and take them into account as a primary consideration in accordance with established principles. Here, whether or not the respondent complied with her section 55 duty is unlikely to be relevant.

Order Regarding Anonymity

The appellants were granted anonymity before the First-tier Tribunal, and the anonymity order was continued at the error of law stage before the Upper Tribunal. The anonymity order is now lifted.

DECISION AND REASONS