PN (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal may be granted where an arguable error of principle in the Upper Tribunal gives the applicant a real prospect of success and provides a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal. This remains so where the case raises no important point of principle or practice. A compelling reason may arise where subsequent appellate decisions have determined the relevant legal issues or quashed applicable country guidance, as in RT (Zimbabwe) [2012] UKSC 38 and JG (Zimbabwe) [2011] EWCA Civ 1704.

Three Zimbabwean nationals renewed applications for permission to appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The applications had been adjourned pending the Supreme Court’s decision in RT (Zimbabwe) [2012] UKSC 38. The Court of Appeal had also decided JG (Zimbabwe) [2011] EWCA Civ 1704, quashing the Upper Tribunal’s country guidance in EM (Zimbabwe) [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC). The central issue was whether each appellant had a real prospect of success and whether there was a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

1. Permission granted. The Court of Appeal granted the renewed applications for permission to appeal in all three cases. It did not determine the substantive appeals.
2. In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in RT (Zimbabwe) [2012] UKSC 38 and the Court of Appeal’s decision in JG (Zimbabwe) [2011] EWCA Civ 1704, each appellant had a real prospect of succeeding. The Upper Tribunal had arguably adopted an erroneous approach in principle to issues that those appellate decisions had determined (para [2]).
3. The absence of an important point of principle or practice did not prevent permission. Each case turned on its own facts, but the arguable error in the Upper Tribunal’s approach supplied a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear each appeal (para [2]).
4. The court permitted amended grounds to be filed and served if advised. It also observed that these appeals might sensibly be linked with other Zimbabwean appeals so that common legal arguments could be addressed once, with the individual facts then considered separately (paras [3]–[4]).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — renewed applications for permission to appeal granted in all three cases: [2012] EWCA Civ 1894.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — decisions under appeal in Appeal No AA/01676/2011; no neutral citation for those decisions is stated in the judgment.