R (on the application of Sharmilla and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and other appeals [2013] EWCA Civ 8, [2013] All ER (D) 122 (Jan)
The general rule stated in the 2010 policy of the secretary of state in relation to dependant adult children of Gurkhas was not so ambiguous in its scope as to be misleading as to what would be a sufficient reason to substantiate a discretionary claim to settlement. On the contrary, the general rule was clearly stated in Annex A, and was that dependant adult children would not normally qualify for the exercise of discretion in line with the main applicant. The normal position was that they were normally expected to apply for leave to enter or remain under the relevant provisions of the policy or under the provisions of Art 8 of the Convention. There was nothing ambiguous or unclear about that. That was the general position.
