Supreme Court to give guidance on the right to private life under Article 8, ECHR

Friday 13 July 2018

David Sellwood represented the appellant, led by Hugh Southey QC at Matrix Chambers.  They were instructed by Muhunthan Paramesvaran at Wilson Solicitors LLP.

Share This Page

Email This Page

On Tuesday 10 July the Supreme Court heard the appeal of Rhuppiah v SSHD.  The appellant is a Tanzanian national.  She arrived in the UK with entry clearance as a student in 1997.  She was granted further leave to remain as a student on various occasions, until 2010.  Applications to regularise her stay were unsuccessful, and she appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).  Whilst sympathetic with her situation, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal on the basis little weight needed to be given to her private life, because it was established when her immigration status was precarious.

The appeal to the Supreme Court concerns three issues: (1) the correct meaning of ‘precarious’ under s 117B(5) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; (2) the weight to be given to private life established when immigration status is precarious, when determining whether removal would breach Article 8 ECHR; and (3) the weight to be given to the ability to speak English and financial independence (also under the 2002 Act) when assessing proportionality under Article 8, ECHR.

David Sellwood is a member of the Garden Court Chambers Immigration team.

The Supreme Court proceedings can be seen on their website.

Related Areas of Law

Latest tweets from Garden Court Chambers

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by gardencourtlaw

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards