Oredugba v Secretary of State for the Home Department

1. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: We have now dismissed this appeal on withdrawal by counsel. 2. The circumstances were that it transpired today that the whole application, and, indeed, the Secretary of State's response to it, was made on a false premise. It was based on the assumption that this Applicant could be financed from abroad, whereas, in fact, in order to stay here under the relevant rules applying to entrepreneurs, he had to be funded by an institution in this country. Had the parties appreciated this, it would have been clear from the beginning that the application was misconceived and this appeal would never have been pursued. 3. The Applicant contends that as a consequence of both he and the Secretary of State failing to appreciate the true position, he has, in fact, overstayed longer than would otherwise have been the case whilst pursuing this appeal. He would want the Secretary of State to recognise that fact if and when he makes any fresh application. Ultimately, whether the Secretary of State looks favourably on an argument of that kind is entirely a matter for her. 4. We would only say that it is clear that all parties here have contributed to the failure to identify the particular error in this application. The Secretary of State might think it appropriate at least to have some regard to that fact when determining what weight to give to the length of the Applicant's overstay. We emphasise that is not a matter for this court. It is a matter for the Secretary of State.