On 30 July 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Darius Hirtie [2026] EWCA Civ 1000. Stuart-Smith LJ delivered the leading judgment. Lewis LJ agreed with the reasons given by Stuart-Smith LJ in his concurring judgment (at paragraphs [71]-[72]); and Moylan LJ agreed with both judgments.

 

Factual and procedural background

Mr Hirtie is a Romanian national aged 27. He entered the UK in 2016/2017 and was subsequently granted leave to remain until April 2026 under the EU Settlement Scheme. His partner is also a Romanian national, and they have two children together. He has two convictions, the latter one attracting a custodial sentence. The SSHD issued a deportation decision after she had rejected his human rights claim. Mr Hirtie appealed against it, and the FtT allowed his appeal. The SSHD appealed from the FtT to the UT, which upheld the FtT’s decision. The SSHD subsequently appealed with leave to the Court of Appeal (see paragraphs [1]-[34] of the judgment).

 

Legal framework

Stuart-Smith LJ adopted the summary of the legal framework provided by Lewis LJ at [8]-[23] of SSHD v Collins Cuthbert Lewis [2026] EWCA Civ 879, which was heard at the same time and before the same constitution as Mr Hirtie’s case (see paragraph [35] of the judgment and Appendix).

 

Ground (1): The FtT erred in law by failing to consider the seriousness of the difficulties that Mr Hirtie’s partner and children are likely to encounter in relocating to Romania with him

The Court of Appeal refused the SSHD permission to rely upon Ground (1) on the basis that:

  • “[I]t would be quite wrong to permit the SSHD to rely upon a ground that was unequivocally withdrawn as a ground of appeal before the UT”; “the withdrawal was in the face of a heavy judicial headwind: but the SSHD was appropriately represented before the UT and was not forced to withdraw the ground”: paragraph [52] of the judgment.
  • “Application of the principles articulated by Haddon-Cave LJ in Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360 leads to the same conclusion”: paragraph [53] of the judgment.
  • “The SSHD is not immune from the obligations outlined in in Lata (FtT: principal controversial issues) [2023] UKUT 163 (IAC), AL v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 370 and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014”, and permitting the SSHD to raise the point now would be contrary to those principles: paragraphs [54]-[55] of the judgment.

 

The SSHD’s submissions are at paragraphs [36]-[43] of the judgment. Mr Hirtie’s submissions in response are at paragraphs [44]-[51] of the judgment. See discussion and resolution at paragraphs [52]-[57] of the judgment.

 

Ground (2): The FtT’s conclusion that there are very compelling circumstances is legally flawed, inadequately reasoned, and perverse

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on Ground (2), finding that:

  • “Although [the FtT] did not formulate the legal test in full detail, it is plain that it had in mind the relevant principles to be applied”: paragraph [62] of the judgment.
  • “It is clear beyond argument that the FtT Judge in substance applied the statutory test”, asking “himself the right question”: paragraph [63] of the judgment.
  • Rounding off the FtT judgment with a tick-box exercise “would have added nothing substantial”: paragraph [64] of the judgment.
  • The FtT “did not consider the ‘go’ option because he was informed that it was not in issue”: paragraph [64] of the judgment.
  • The FtT was entitled to reach the conclusion that it did, the findings were “careful and measured”: paragraphs [66]-[68] of the judgment.
  • “On any view, the partner’s profoundly difficult and traumatic past was relevant evidence which the FtT was entitled to accept”: paragraph [66] of the judgment.
  • “While confirmatory expert evidence may be desirable, depending on the facts of the given case, there is no rational basis for a blanket assertion that Judges of the FtT are not entitled to make findings about the impact of a particular course of action on people whose evidence they have heard and accepted but in the absence of expert evidence”: paragraph [67] of the judgment.
  • In his judgment, Lewis LJ articulated that: “On the particular facts of this case, the FtT came to a conclusion which was open to it, on the evidence that it had heard, and given the issues before it”: paragraph [72] of the judgment.

 

The SSHD’s submissions are at paragraphs [58]-[60] of the judgment. Mr Hirtie’s submissions in response are at paragraph [61] of the judgment. See discussion and resolution at paragraphs [62]-[69] of the judgment.

 

The Respondent was represented by Benjamin Hawkin, leading Susana Ferrín, both of No5 Barristers’ Chambers. They were instructed by TMC Solicitors Ltd.

 

The judgment can be read here.