/ Case Law & Analysis / By

When is an error of law really an error of law?

MD (Turkey) in the Court of Appeal

Immigration appeals frequently turn on whether the First-tier Tribunal made a material error of law. That phrase is often invoked, but not always well understood. MD (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department is an important Court of Appeal decision on what actually counts as an error of law, and on when an appellate tribunal should resist the temptation to re-decide the facts.

As the solicitor instructed in MD (Turkey), working with counsel in the Court of Appeal, the case has shaped how arguments about alleged errors of law are approached in immigration and asylum appeals.

The problem with “error of law” appeals

Reasons challenges as disguised merits appeals

A common ground of appeal is that a judge’s reasons were “inadequate” or “unclear”. Often, however, the real complaint is not a legal defect in the reasoning but disagreement with the judge’s factual findings.

MD (Turkey) is important because it draws a clear line between genuine legal error and an attempt to re-litigate the facts.

The Court of Appeal accepted that tribunal judges must give reasons which are proper, intelligible, and adequate. But it stressed that reasons do not need to address every argument or every piece of evidence. Appellate bodies should not treat every arguable imperfection in reasoning as a material error of law.

What MD (Turkey) actually says about errors of law

The legal threshold

MD (Turkey) confirms that a challenge based on inadequate reasons only discloses an error of law where, taken as a whole:

  • the reasons are so deficient that the losing party does not know why they lost; or
  • the appellate court or tribunal cannot understand the basis on which the decision was reached.

This is a demanding threshold. It is not met simply because the reasoning could have been fuller or more elegantly expressed.

What an error of law is not

The judgment underlines several important limits:

  • A reasons challenge is not an invitation to substitute a different view of the facts.
  • The question is not whether the judge could have expressed the reasoning better, but whether the reasoning given is sufficient to support the conclusion reached.

In doing so, MD (Turkey) cautions appellate tribunals, including the Upper Tribunal, against recasting disagreement with factual evaluation as a “material error of law”.

Appellate restraint and fact-finding

Respecting the First-tier Tribunal’s role

MD (Turkey) reinforces the principle that primary fact-finding belongs to the First-tier Tribunal. Appellate bodies should not engage in wholesale revisiting of findings unless a truly legal flaw is identified.

The decision serves as a warning against appellate overreach: intervention is justified only where the reasoning process itself is legally defective, not where a different tribunal might have reached a different conclusion on the evidence.

Why MD (Turkey) matters for practitioners

Bringing appeals

For those considering or advancing an appeal:

  • It is essential to identify precise legal errors: misdirection in law, failure to consider a material matter, or reasons so inadequate that the decision cannot safely stand.
  • Generalised complaints that a judge “ignored” evidence or “failed to engage” with submissions will rarely succeed unless clearly anchored to those legal tests.

Resisting appeals

For those responding to an appeal:

  • MD (Turkey) provides a principled framework for defending First-tier Tribunal decisions that may be imperfectly expressed but sound in substance.
  • It supports submissions that the Upper Tribunal should respect primary fact-finding and avoid remaking a case simply because it might have reached a different view.

What this means for clients

From a client’s perspective, MD (Turkey) helps explain why error-of-law appeals are difficult to win. An appeal is not a fresh hearing about whether the judge was “right” or “wrong” on the facts. It is a narrower review of whether the judge made a material legal mistake, or produced a decision whose reasoning is so inadequate that it cannot safely stand.

That distinction can be frustrating, but it is central to understanding how the appellate system works.

How MD (Turkey) informs our appeals and representation work

This analysis reflects our approach to immigration appeals and representation, where advice is grounded in a clear understanding of what does and does not amount to a material error of law.

Assessing prospects

Prospects are assessed candidly against the Court of Appeal’s guidance on what does, and does not, amount to a material error of law.

Drafting grounds of appeal

Grounds are drafted to focus on clear legal missteps, avoiding scattergun reasons challenges of the kind the case warns against.

Defending sound decisions

Where appropriate, decisions are robustly defended against attempts to reframe factual disagreement as legal error.

MD (Turkey) is a reminder that effective appellate advocacy depends on understanding the limits of the appellate function as much as its power: correcting genuine legal error, not re-hearing the case in all but name.

MD was represented by Richard Bartram of The Migrant Law Partnership

Judgement

The Court of Appeal judgment in MD (Turkey) can be read in full on BAILII.