QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MULHAXHA||(CLAIMANT)|
|IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS KATE GALLAFENT (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"to secure the just, timely and effective disposal of appeals ..... "
Rule 42 (a) reads:
"Where in the case of two or more appeals it appears to the appellate authority that -
(a) some common question of law or fact arises in both or .....
(b) they relate to decisions or action taken in respect of persons who are members of the same family;
the appellate authority may ..... decide the appeals should be heard together."
Everything that has happened in this matter has illustrated the wisdom of the principle that where cases of whatever kind are related, the best course is that they be tried together.
"The fact that an adjudicator allowed a separately presented appeal by the applicant's mother is a matter I note, but which is in no way determinative of this applicant's case."
"In May 2000 the appellant's son [the claimant] visited the family home at Pec in Kosovo and was threatened by former members of the KLA who were making enquiries about the father's whereabouts. The appellant's son was unharmed."
She recited this incident again in her crucial decision at paragraph 24, saying:
"I have accepted, at the appropriate standard of proof, that her son was threatened by former members of the KLA when visiting the family home in Kosovo ..... "
She plainly regarded this as influential evidence. By contrast, the evidence of the claimant in his own appeal was as stated in his third witness statement when he said:
" ..... I was informed by my family that former KLA
members visited our house, which is owned by my father, where a number of our relatives had been staying after their own houses had been destroyed in May 2000. My family were threatened by the KLA and they wanted to know where my father and my family was."
He was plainly describing an incident at which he was not present and of which he was receiving news secondhand.
"Whether it [the protection of family life under Article 8] extends to other relationships depends on the circumstances of the particular case. In immigration cases, relationships between a parent and adult child would not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 ..... without evidence of further elements of dependency, involving more than the normal emotional ties ..... "
"I regard the adjudicator's conclusions as consistent with the evidence before her, and as fully supported by that evidence. I find nothing in the grounds to cause me to question the correctness of her conclusion or to regard the determination as flawed."