Where a first instance judge is faced with a point on which there are two previous inconsistent decisions from judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction, then the second of those decisions should be followed in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary
Judges:
Lord Neuberger MR, Hallett VP QBD, Stanley Burnton LJJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 741, [2012] INLR 485, [2012] WLR(D) 174, [2013] 1 WLR 63, [2012] Imm AR 898, [2012] 4 All ER 94
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Not Followed – Mirza and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Feb-2011
The Secretary of State’s failure to make a removal decision at the same time as, or shortly after, the decision to refuse leave to remain was unlawful. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Litigation Practice
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.459864
