Gurung & Others (Gurkhas, historic injustice, Article 8) Nepal [2026] UKUT 191 (08 April 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal considered appeals by Maya Gurung, Rajesh Gurung and Rajani Gurung against refusal of leave to enter the UK, in a case turning on Article 8 family life and the claimed historic injustice to Gurkha veterans. It held that in such cases the tribunal should first ask whether Article 8(1) family life exists, then whether there is a causal "but for" link between the historic injustice and the appellants' situation, and then conduct a proportionality assessment under Article 8(2).

Key points

• Parties: three Gurung appellants v Entry Clearance Officer; the claim was based on family life with a mother and son resident in the UK
• Holding: the tribunal set out the correct three-stage approach for historic-injustice Article 8 cases involving Gurkha families
• Reasoning: it requires an "additional elements of dependency test" for Article 8(1), then a causation inquiry, then a proportionality balance
• Reasoning: where the historic injustice causally explains the appellants' position and the Home Secretary relies only on effective immigration control, the balance will normally favour the appellant
• No sanctions/export-control issue appears in the source text; the case is about immigration, family life, and historic injustice
• The tribunal discussed prior Gurkha authority and the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control

Why it matters

This is not a sanctions or export-control judgment, but it matters for sovereign-risk and UK state-responsibility analysis because it shows how historic policy injustice can materially weaken the government's immigration-control position in family-reunification litigation. The reasoning is relevant to any compliance review involving UK entry-clearance refusals where family unity claims are built on Gurkha-related historic injustice.

Implications

For litigation strategy, the decision frames Gurkha-related Article 8 appeals as a structured causation-and-proportionality exercise rather than a free-standing equities argument. For compliance and enforcement, it signals that refusal decisions in this category must grapple with whether the historic injustice actually caused the present family separation; if that link is established and no stronger public-interest factor is advanced, the refusal is vulnerable on proportionality.