Tribunal decisions

The decision

Case No: JR-2024-LON-002411
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR

Hearing date: 24 April 2025
Judgment date: 12 May 2025
Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

THE KING
on the application of
MAKKI SHAKIR MAHMOOD AL-FAHHAM
Applicant
- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Abigail Smith
(instructed by Danielle Cohen Immigration Law Solicitors), for the applicant

Matthew Howarth
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent

Hearing date: 24 April 2025

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judge Lodato:

Introduction
1. The applicant challenges, with permission, the lawfulness of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse to extend his stay in the UK as the representative of an overseas business. The central thrust of the challenge is that the respondent introduced an unlawful and mandatory requirement that the applicant must produce evidence of trading through a UK bank account. This suggested misguided approach was said to have caused the respondent to disregard a range of other compelling evidence which went to the applicable criteria set out in Appendix Representative of an Overseas Business (‘Appendix ROB’) of the Immigration Rules.
2. For the respondent’s part, not only was the central challenge disputed, it was further argued that even if a misguided approach was taken to the absence of evidence from a UK bank account, discretionary relief should be refused because the ultimate decision could not have been any different on a lawful analysis of the evidence which was provided to the decision-maker. In the context of this argument, it was suggested that on no sensible analysis could the applicant be said to have generated business, principally with firms in the UK.
Procedural Background
3. The challenged decisions come against the backdrop of the applicant’s (and his dependent family members’) grant of leave to enter the UK, dated 16 July 2020, as the representative of an overseas business. He entered the UK with his family on 3 August 2020, with leave to remain valid until 9 March 2023.
4. Before the expiry of his leave to remain, on 7 March 2023, the applicant made an application for further leave to remain on the same footing. The respondent sought further information on three occasions before refusing the application in a decision dated 3 August 2023. The refusal decision was endorsed on administrative review in a decision dated 8 June 2024. The combination of these decisions was the focus of the claim for judicial review.
The Challenged Decisions
5. In an email dated 3 August 2023, the respondent refused the applicant’s application for further leave to remain. Below are the key matters which emerge from that decision:
• The decision began its reasoning by reciting paragraph 8.6.(c)(i) of Appendix ROB which provided that an applicant must provide “evidence of business that has been generated, principally with firms in the UK, on behalf of their employer since their last grant of permission, in the form of accounts, copies of invoices or letters from businesses with whom the applicant has done business, including the value of transactions”. It was then indicated that insufficient evidence had been provided of business generated whilst in the UK. [Page 2 of the decision]
• It was noted that three requests were made for further information to support the application. Each request was said to have included a specific invitation to provide evidence in support of business generated by MTC Global Trading Limited (‘the UK entity’) principally with firms in the UK including dated evidence of emails with its clients. [2-3]
• It was further noted that a particular request had been made for an explanation as to why Companies House showed the UK entity to have been dormant until August 2021, and to have declared a £0 turnover until 31 August 2021. [3]
• The responses, on behalf of the applicant, to these requests for further information were summarised. The parts of this correspondence which relied upon the difficult trading conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic and the multiple refusals of UK banks to permit accounts to be opened were copied into the decision. A brief conclusion was set out in the following terms:
Whilst we acknowledge the reasons provided, and the impact of Covid-19 on businesses within the UK, Covid lockdown restrictions were in fact lifted in the UK in April 2021. We would not, therefore, have expected [the UK entity] to remain dormant until August 2021, according to both filing on companies house, and [the UK entity]’s accounts for the year ended 31 August 2021. [3-4]
• References were made to the applicant’s responses, dated 22 May 2023 and 16 June 2023, to requests for further evidence demonstrating business generated in the UK by the UK entity. Parts of this correspondence were copied in which the difficult trading environment during the pandemic were emphasised and the steps the applicant had taken to establish business relationships at conferences and “through virtual networking and marketing”. It was stated that attendance at these conferences were funded (with invoices provided) by MTC Global Trading FZCO (‘the parent company’) because of the barriers to opening a UK bank account for the UK entity. Business transactions worth £54,000, supported by records and correspondence, were said to have been agreed in 2022 by the UK entity, with the necessary movement of funds arranged by the parent company due to the lack of a UK business account. However, it was noted that the applicant had been able to obtain a UK credit business card. The UK entity was engaged in making deals for various industrial goods from British suppliers. Trade Place Ltd was relied upon as such a partner, which agreed to accept payment from the parent company. In consideration of this material, the decision-maker said this:
It is acknowledged you have evidenced attending numerous conferences and exhibitions on behalf of [the UK entity] whilst in the UK. It is also acknowledged that you have submitted an invoice which you state [the UK entity] made a cash payment for. It is noted that the majority of [the UK entity]’s purchase invoices have been paid by [the parent company], or alternatively, it was stated the payment is not yet due. The sales invoices submitted are addressed later in this letter. [4-5]
• Upon copying an extract from a letter, dated 16 June 2023, from the applicant’s representatives in which marketing, business development and the completion of a transaction for batteries and filters were summarised, the decision-maker set out the following observations:
As acknowledged above, you have evidenced attending numerous conferences and exhibitions on behalf of [the UK entity] whilst in the UK. It is the case that Covid lockdown restrictions were lifted in the UK in April 2021. Whilst we acknowledge the reasons you have provided, and do not dispute the impact of Covid-19 on businesses within the UK, we would expect that you would have been able to demonstrate some evidence of business generated, with firms in the UK, during your initial 3-year grant.
You have submitted four invoices in total, all issued by [the parent company]. Three are dated August 2022, two of which are addressed to M/S Wahat Al Sahraa Trading LLC, Iraq, and one to M/S Dijah for General Trading LLC Dubai. The fourth invoice is dated November 2022 and addressed to M/S Wahat Al Sahraa Trading LLC, Iraq. It is acknowledged you evidenced payment of these invoices made to your parent company, […].
Therefore, you have not submitted any sales invoices issued by [the UK entity]. You have only submitted sales invoices issued by [the parent company], all of which are addressed to businesses outside the UK, and for which corresponding payments were made to [the parent company].
All the submitted evidence of emails and correspondence conducted between [the UK entity] and its clients are dated after your initial 3-year grant.
You have been unable to provide business bank statements for [the UK entity]. [6]
• Upon copying an extract from the applicant’s correspondence, dated 22 May 2023, in which he sought to explain why he had been unable to open a UK business bank account, the decision-maker said the following:
It is acknowledged you provided evidence of having made numerous attempts to open a business bank account for [the UK entity]. It is also acknowledged that you evidenced payment made in relation to the invoices submitted to [the parent company], as stated above. However, it remains the case that your inability to provide business bank statements for [the UK entity] means we are unable to use these to assess any evidence of business generated by [the UK entity] within the UK.
You have provided no evidence of actively trading with companies in the UK. This leads us to conclude that you have not been actively engaged in trading with companies in the UK.
Therefore, we are not satisfied that you have sufficiently demonstrated evidence of business that has been generated, principally with firms in the UK, as required by paragraph ROB 8.6(c)(i) quoted above.
Your application is therefore refused under the Immigration Rules Appendix: Representative of an Overseas Business, paragraphs ROB 8.6(c)(i). [7]
• The applicant was informed of his ability to seek an administrative review of the decision. [8]
6. In an email dated 8 June 2024, the respondent, on review, endorsed the August 2023 refusal decision and provided reasons. Below are the key matters which emerge from that decision:
• The substance of the review decision began by noting that the original decision-maker applied the correct legal framework and set the scene for the remaining analysis in the following way:
[…] Under those rules, you were required to provide evidence of business generated, principally with firms in the UK, on behalf of your employer since your last grant of permission. As stated in the original refusal decision notification, you failed to satisfy this requirement because you provided insufficient evidence of business generated. I have therefore maintained the original decision. I have responded to your grounds below. [Page 3 of the review decision]
• It was noted that the applicant had pointed to invoices worth £21,556, £32,992 and £18,980 from Trade Place Ltd addressed to the UK entity, RAKBANK statements showing payment of the funds owed by the parent company and invoices from the parent company to a business registered in Iraq, and another business. All of these records were created in 2022. The UK entity’s business accounts reflected UK tax which was paid on the final transactions. It was further noted that the applicant’s representatives pointed to correspondence between the UK entity and UK businesses and records which indicated that the UK entity had a turnover of £82,750 in 2022 and £33,513 in 2023. [4]
• In addressing the explanation provided by the applicant that the UK entity could not make direct payments to UK businesses, and was forced to rely on the parent company for such payments, because of the inability to open a UK business bank account, the reviewer reached the following conclusions:
Whilst it is acknowledged you provided the evidence you refer to above with your Representative of an Overseas Business application, you were unable to provide bank account statements for [the UK entity] evidencing [the UK entity] had made payment for the products you refer to above. I am satisfied the original decision maker reasonably assessed from this that without being able to assess bank statements for [the UK entity], they could not rely on the invoices from Trade Place Ltd, RAKBANK bank statements, and [the UK entity]’s accounts as sufficient evidence showing [the UK entity] had made the purchases.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Representative of an Overseas Business route is to enable overseas businesses to set up branches or subsidiaries in the UK to sell a product or service to UK based customers. The caseworker correctly identified that you had only provided evidence of sales made to businesses outside of the UK (invoices addressed to [the parent company], and payments made to [the parent company] as reflected in bank statements).
I am consequently satisfied the caseworker reasonably determined because of these factors that you had not actively engaged in trade with UK firms, and you had provided insufficient evidence of business generated by [the UK entity] principally with UK firms since you were granted permission to enter the UK on the Representative of an Overseas Business route. [5]
• It was observed that the original decision-maker reasonably refused the application under Appendix ROB and set out the relevant provisions of the rules. The reviewer then turned to the difficult trading environment during the pandemic and the inability to open a UK business bank account. These matters were addressed with the following analysis:
Whilst it is appreciated you faced challenging circumstances during the period you held permission on the Representative of an Overseas Business route, the administrative review process is limited to reviewing whether the caseworker made any errors when deciding your Representative of an Overseas Business application. Moreover, it is unfortunately not within the power of the Administrative Review Team to grant discretionary leave.
The caseworker reasonably assessed in the decision letter that you had a reasonable length of time following the lifting of the lockdown restrictions to generate business and provide evidence of business generated for [the UK entity], and they could not rely on your evidence as sufficiently demonstrating [the UK entity] had made purchases from UK firms because you had not also provided bank statements for [the UK entity]. I am therefore satisfied the caseworker considered the issues you faced during your grant of permission on the Representative of an Overseas Business route.
You further claim the caseworker failed to apply the evidential flexibility policy. But no further information specifically concerning this ground was provided. I am satisfied the caseworker applied the evidential flexibility policy because they emailed you lengthy letters 4 times requesting lots of specific information/evidence before they made their decision on your Representative of an Overseas Business application. [6-7]
• The overall outcome of the review was expressed in these terms:
Accordingly, for the reasons above, I am satisfied that no errors have occurred and the caseworker who decided your Representative of an Overseas Business application made the correct decision to refuse your application.
I am also satisfied the caseworker made the correct decision to refuse your dependants’ applications as your application was correctly refused which meant your dependants’ applications could not unfortunately have succeeded. [8]
The Grounds of Challenge and the Responsive Arguments
7. The applicant’s claim for judicial review was sealed on 6 September 2024. He relied on four grounds to challenge the lawfulness of the refusal decision and review (see paragraph [2] of the statement of facts and grounds):
I. The Respondent unlawfully and irrationally introduced an additional requirement to the Applicant’s application for leave to remain as an ROB by requiring him to provide business bank accounts which is inconsistent with the Immigration Rules and the applicable published policy guidance.
II. In requiring the Applicant to provide business bank accounts the Respondent acted unlawfully, unfairly and in a discriminatory way by failing to take into account either adequately or at all the Applicant’s multiple unsuccessful attempts to open a business bank account in the UK and/or by failing to consider the difficulties faced by those in the Applicant’s immigration category in opening a business bank account in the UK.
III. In assessing whether the Applicant meets the requirements of the Rules for further leave to remain as an ROB the Respondent unlawfully and irrationally failed to have regard to the fact that HMRC had accepted the tax payments for the UK company which was plainly on the basis that it was accepted this is income generated in the UK.
IV. The Respondent unlawfully fettered their discretion by failing to grant the Applicant further leave to remain in the particular circumstances and/or by failing to adequately take those circumstances into account.
8. In the detailed grounds of defence (at paragraphs [27], [40], [44] and [52]), it was recognised that the rules did not mandate provision of UK business bank account statements, but this form of evidence would naturally be relevant in establishing UK-based trading. While the respondent engaged with each of the four grounds of challenge, it was broadly argued that the decisions did not hinge on the absence of UK business bank account statements but instead assessed the overall evidential picture. Addressing the question of relief if any of the grounds were made out, it was argued that s.31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 applied in the sense that the decisions should stand because it was highly likely that the decision would be same even if the argued defects of reasoning had not occurred.
The Grant of Permission
9. Permission was granted for all grounds to be argued in a decision taken on the papers by Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick. The following observations were made at [5]-[7]:
It is clearly arguable that in spite of putting forward various concerns in the initial refusal decision, in particular about the lack of business generated in the UK in the course of 2021, both the respondent’s initial decision and the AR decision ultimately rested on the respondent’s perceived inability to accept that business had been established in the UK in the absence of UK bank statements. This is arguably reflected in the respondent’s statements that it was because of the absence of UK bank statements that she was “unable” to assess the rest of the evidence and “could not rely on it”.
Arguably, this goes beyond treating bank statements as one form of potentially relevant evidence, as the respondent essentially argues in the AOS, and is, in effect, to treat bank statements as mandatory.
It is clearly arguable that, as set out in detail in the grounds, bank statements are not required by the immigration rules and that therefore, if they have been effectively treated as mandatory, this was unlawful.
The Hearing and the Decisive Issues
10. During the substantive hearing, I heard comprehensive and helpful submissions from the parties. These submissions broadly followed the position set out by the parties in their respective written submissions and it is unnecessary to set them out at length in this judgment. I address any arguments of substance in the discussion section below.
11. By the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed that there were two fundamental issues which would resolve the substance of the claim:
A. Did the refusal decision and administrative review decision, read together, hinge on the absence of UK business bank account statements such that this factor overshadowed all else and became mandatory and decisive?
B. If the first issue is resolved in the applicant’s favour, would the decision be highly likely to be the same upon a lawful consideration of the evidence considered by the respondent?
The Legal Framework
12. Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides:
(2A) The High Court—
a. must refuse to grant relief on an application for judicial review, and
b. may not make an award under subsection (4) on such an application,
if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.

13. The application was made and decided under Appendix Representative of an Overseas Business. In the section headed Additional Business Requirements for a Sole Representative of an Overseas Business Route, paragraph 8.6.1.(c) provides:
ROB 8.6. The applicant must meet all the following requirements:
[…]
(c) the applicant must provide all of the following:
(i) evidence of business that has been generated, principally with firms in the UK, on behalf of their employer since their last grant of permission, in the form of accounts, copies of invoices or letters from businesses with whom the applicant has done business, including the value of transactions; and

[…]
14. At page 23 of the Representative of an Overseas Business guidance for Home Office staff, version 23, published on 17 July 2023, the following is stated (where relevant):
Evidential requirement for representatives of an overseas business
This section explains what evidence must be provided to prove both the employer and employee satisfy the requirements as a representative of an overseas business.
If you need to write to the applicant or employer for evidence, you can do so. Please note that the evidential flexibility rule does not apply to this category. Any request for further information would be on a discretionary basis.
Documents required for extension applications
[…]
If applying as a Sole Representative, the employee must also provide additional evidence about the branch or subsidiary they have established.
They must provide:
• evidence they have generated business, principally with businesses in the UK, on behalf of their employer since the last permission in this category - the evidence must be in the form of accounts, copies of invoices or letters from firms who they have done business with, including indications of the value of transactions
Discussion
15. In accordance with the agreed fundamental issues to be resolved in this claim, it is important to keep in mind that the central and primary question is whether the respondent adopted an overly narrow analytical approach by looking only to the absence of UK bank statements to demonstrate the necessary business activity. It has not been suggested that the overall conclusion was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The challenge is to the process of analysis and reasoning which resulted in the decision. This perhaps explains why Ms Smith did not maintain the suggestion made in the original grounds that one of the forms of relief sought was a mandatory order compelling the respondent to grant the applicant an extension of his leave. Instead, the remedy sought, if the claim succeeds on its merits, is that the respondent is ordered to reconsider the decisions which have gone against the applicant; decisions which would themselves fall to be quashed. With those introductory remarks, I turn now to the two fundamental issues in dispute.
Did the refusal decision and administrative review decision, read together, hinge on the absence of UK business bank account statements such that this factor overshadowed all else and became mandatory and decisive?
16. The starting point for considering this question must be whether there is a place for an absence of UK business bank account statements or records to be considered at all in the context of this application. The relevant part of Appendix ROB and the accompanying guidance provide for the kind of evidence which is to be provided by an applicant in support of the proposition that business has been generated, principally with UK firms.
17. The types of evidence include “accounts”. The parties disagreed about what this means. Ms Smith suggested that this word was obvious shorthand for conventional business accounts showing the financial performance of the relevant UK entity, not a requirement for UK business bank account records. Mr Howarth argued that “accounts”, as used in the rules, must embrace bank accounts and that it was therefore legitimate and reasonable for the decision-maker to rely on the absence of such records. It is unnecessary to conclusively decide whether “accounts” includes UK business bank accounts. This is because the parties agreed during the hearing that the existence or absence of UK business bank accounts statements was a relevant factor to be considered in the assessment of whether business had been generated, principally with UK firms. It would be decidedly odd if this were not the position because it would have the effect of forcing the decision-maker to leave out of account potentially probative records, produced by an independent third party, namely a UK bank, going to the existence of trade in the UK which is the central underlying purpose of the scheme. Where the existence of a particular form of evidence is potentially probative to the issue to be decided, it must follow that the absence of such records might also be probative.
18. Neither the initial refusal decision nor the review decision expressly indicated that the rules required such UK bank account records to be provided in support of the application. Instead, the applicant argues that the way in which this suggested gap in the evidence was approached reveals that this form of evidence was treated as a mandatory requirement.
19. In deciding whether the respondent looked to the absence of UK Business bank account records to the exclusion of all else, it is worth recalling what features, apart from the absence of UK bank account statements, were assessed. I use the word “assessed” advisedly because I recognise and accept Ms Smith’s argument that more is required of a reasonable and rational decision maker than to simply itemise what was before them.
20. The initial refusal decision expressed doubt that the Covid-19 lockdowns fully explained the UK entity’s lack of commercial activity until August 2021. This was an assessment, however brief, not a mere summary. This decision went on to refer to the absence of any invoices issued by the UK entity and observed that the only invoices relied upon were generated by the parent company. It was further noted that the only correspondence between the UK entity and clients were after the initial three-year period of leave. Again, while briefly expressed, this was an analysis of parts of the evidential landscape which stood apart from the absence of UK business bank account statements.
21. The review decision built upon the initial refusal decision by noting that “Furthermore, the purpose of the Representative of an Overseas Business route is to enable overseas businesses to set up branches or subsidiaries in the UK to sell a product or service to UK based customers”. This can only be understood as reliance on the undisputed evidence that the UK entity had never claimed to have sold any products or services to a UK business. This was not a conclusion which turned on the absence of UK business bank account records.
22. Ms Smith emphasised that parts of the evidence provided to the respondent were not expressly considered which tended to underscore the inflated importance attached to the absent UK bank account statements. In particular, she highlighted that the UK entity’s UK tax return had not been referred to in either decision letter. This was said to be of importance because it revealed income earned in the UK which was subject to UK taxation. However, it appears to me that this is to lose sight of the source of that tax liability which was undoubtedly considered. Not only was the tax burden expressly referred to in correspondence which was cited in the review decision, the tax which was payable was drawn from the monies which moved through the parent company’s accounts and were attributed to the UK entity because it did not have a UK business bank account. These transnational transactions were undoubtedly assessed in the review decision. Additional and express references to the submitted tax return would have added nothing to the central analysis copied above in which it was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that any goods or services had ever been sold by the UK entity to another UK business. The means by which goods were purchased from UK businesses, sold to Middle Eastern businesses and then the income from those deals attributed to the UK entity for tax purposes were not left out of account but were simply not matters which assisted the applicant’s cause that business had been generated, principally with UK firms.
23. Ms Smith relied heavily on an extract from each decision as supporting her case that the respondent had unlawfully confined himself to the absence of UK business bank account statements. For the reasons set out above, it is important not to take paragraphs out of context and disregard what came before and after those parts which have been relied upon. However, even taken in isolation, the passages relied upon do not bear the weight which has been placed on them. The passage from the initial refusal decision is as follows:
It is acknowledged you provided evidence of having made numerous attempts to open a business bank account for [the UK entity]. It is also acknowledged that you evidenced payment made in relation to the invoices submitted to [the parent company], as stated above. However, it remains the case that your inability to provide business bank statements for [the UK entity] means we are unable to use these to assess any evidence of business generated by [the UK entity] within the UK.
You have provided no evidence of actively trading with companies in the UK. This leads us to conclude that you have not been actively engaged in trading with companies in the UK.
On my reading of the first above paragraph, the decision-maker is simply stating that the absent evidence from a UK bank account cannot assist the applicant to demonstrate the necessary business generation. I do not read the second paragraph as being inexorably tethered to the first but to instead draw the threads together from the overall analysis to reach a global conclusion about the broad lack of evidence to meet the requirements of the rules to show business generated, principally with UK firms. It appears to me that much the same is to be inferred from the passage (albeit within a single paragraph) relied upon from the review decision:
Whilst it is acknowledged you provided the evidence you refer to above with your Representative of an Overseas Business application, you were unable to provide bank account statements for [the UK entity] evidencing [the UK entity] had made payment for the products you refer to above. I am satisfied the original decision maker reasonably assessed from this that without being able to assess bank statements for [the UK entity], they could not rely on the invoices from Trade Place Ltd, RAKBANK bank statements, and [the UK entity]’s accounts as sufficient evidence showing [the UK entity] had made the purchases.
On a natural reading of the above assessment, the decision-maker was not discounting the other evidence going to the question of business generated principally with UK firms, but was instead pointing out that this evidence did not sufficiently establish the contended proposition.
24. During the proceedings, a satellite issue emerged about the meaning of business generation. Mr Howarth argued that on no sensible interpretation could business generation principally with UK firms be understood to apply to the kind of transactions disclosed on the evidence in support of this claim. He described the UK entity as nothing more than a “shopfront” for the parent company and that there was no meaningful business conducted in the UK. Ms Smith forcefully refuted this characterisation and submitted that the respondent’s arguments amounted to an unrealistically narrow view of the conduct of business. She emphasised that it is a perfectly legitimate business enterprise to buy products in the UK and sell them on to a business outside the UK for a profit. This was said to be international trade which would properly amount to generation of business. If the respondent intended to restrict the type of business which could be undertaken in the UK under this scheme, it would have been easy to draft the rules in such a way. For example, this could have been achieved by requiring a UK subsidiary to earn commercial income from a UK source. I have described this matter as a satellite issue because it is unnecessary for me to decide this question in circumstances where the decisive question is whether the challenged decisions hinged on the absence of UK business bank account statements. The application was not refused on the platform of the interpretative point of principle advanced by Mr Howarth that this type of business could never qualify under the scheme. Instead, the decisions were taken on the strength of the available evidence in concluding that this particular business had not been shown to meet the necessary threshold of business generated, principally with UK firms.
25. When I ask myself the question encapsulated in the first fundamental issue, whether the absence of UK business bank account statements was elevated to the plain of a decisive and mandatory evidential factor, the answer must be that it was not. The respondent, in the initial refusal decision and the review, reached lawful and rational conclusions on the global evidential picture of how the UK entity engaged in business activities with the parent company, their clients and UK suppliers. I reject the suggestion that the respondent looked to a narrow gap in the evidence as a means to ignore other relevant evidence and material. A fair and natural reading of the decisions demonstrates that the underlying evidence was assessed. While the analysis and conclusions about other evidence can perhaps fairly be described as brief, it remains there to be seen on the face of the decisions. The respondent has, with reference to the overall evidential landscape, reached a lawful conclusion on whether business was generated principally with UK firms. The analysis did not turn exclusively on the absence of UK business bank account statements.
26. As recognised during the hearing, the conclusions I have reached on the first fundamental issue dispose of all grounds of challenge. The claim does not, therefore, succeed. It follows that it is unnecessary to assess the second fundamental issue because this matter went to the question of relief if any of the grounds of challenge succeeded.

P Lodato

Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato

12 May 2025

~~~~0~~~~