Appellate jurisdiction describes a court’s power to hear and determine appeals from decisions of a lower court or tribunal, rather than to conduct an original trial of the facts. In legal practice it concerns reviewing alleged errors of law, procedure or (more rarely) fact, and may result in affirming, setting aside, varying, or remitting the decision under appeal.In the UK and Ireland the term is used descriptively across civil and criminal proceedings and is shaped by statute and case law governing each appeal route. The scope of appellate jurisdiction is defined by the relevant enabling legislation (for example, the Senior Courts Act 1981, Criminal Appeal Acts, devolution statutes, and equivalent Irish and Northern Irish legislation) and court rules, which specify who may appeal, time limits, grounds of appeal and available remedies.Usage is broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, although the structure of the appellate courts differs. Practitioners commonly distinguish between appeal as of right and appeal with permission/leave, and between first‑instance jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction when advising on forum, standard of review, prospects of success, and costs and delay risks.

Appellate procedure describes the rules and steps for challenging a judgment or order in a higher court, from permission/leave to appeal to disposal. The term is descriptive; rules are set by statute and court rules in each jurisdiction.Core features include strict time limits; a notice of appeal setting out grounds; permission/leave in most cases; a standard generally of review rather than rehearing; deference to primary findings of fact; and exceptional admission of fresh evidence (England & Wales and Northern Ireland under Ladd v Marshall; Scotland and Ireland under statutory/exceptional tests). Appellate courts may affirm, vary, set aside, remit or order a retrial; stays and costs/sentencing issues commonly arise.Routes and sources vary: England & Wales (CPR Part 52; Criminal Appeal Act 1968; Court of Appeal and Supreme Court). Scotland (Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995; Sheriff Appeal Court; Inner House; High Court of Justiciary). Northern Ireland (Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI); Court of Appeal). Ireland (Rules of the Superior Courts; Court of Appeal Act 2014; Court of Appeal; Supreme Court leave for issues of general public importance or in the interests of justice).

Appellate review is the process by which a higher court examines a decision of a lower court or tribunal to determine whether it contains an error of law, a material procedural irregularity, or, in some cases, an unreasonable or plainly wrong factual finding or exercise of discretion. It is central to the appellate system in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and is governed by legislation, court rules and case law rather than a single statutory definition.Appellate review is generally not a rehearing of the whole case. The appellate court usually considers the existing record, written and oral submissions, and the judgment or determination under challenge. The standard and intensity of review differ depending on whether the appeal is on law only, fact, or mixed fact and law.Across the UK and Ireland, appellate courts may affirm, set aside, vary or remit the decision. Leave or permission to appeal is often required, filtering out unmeritorious challenges. Appellate review underpins consistency of legal interpretation, development of precedent and the correction of serious injustice in both civil and criminal proceedings.

An appendix within the rules'>Immigration Rules providing a route for applications based on family life, made on or after 9 July 2012. The provision caters for applications made as a partner, bereaved partner, victim of domestic abuse, child, parent, adult dependant relatives and those with exceptional circumstances.

The five-year partner and parent routes in the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM have strict eligibility requirements. If an applicant partner or parent is applying for leave to remain and cannot meet all the requirements, consideration will be given to whether the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, para EX.1 applies. This is one of the three arms of the ten-year route to settlement for such applicants (the other two being the ‘Exceptional circumstances’ provisions in the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, paras GEN.3.1 and GEN.3.2). This Practice Note looks at whether para EX.1 will apply. The clearest example of where para EX.1 will be the most relevant/appropriate provision is where the applicant partner has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a British child. For applications by partners, para EX.1 may be relevant where: • the applicant partner is in a genuine and subsisting relationship with the sponsoring partner but cannot meet certain of the requirements of Appendix FM, Family life as a partner • the applicant partner is in a genuine and subsisting relationship with the sponsoring

This Practice Note looks at the of ‘Exceptional circumstances’ provisions found in para GEN.3.1‒3.3 of the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, which may apply where a partner, child or parent applying under Appendix FM does not meet all of the requirements of the five-year route. They may also apply where an application for leave to remain made in another category is considered under Appendix FM. Unlike para EX.1, which only applies to applications for leave to remain, the ‘Exceptional circumstances’ provisions apply to all applications for entry clearance and leave to remain. On 22 February 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in R (MM (Lebanon)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). This decision upheld the lawfulness of the ‘minimum income threshold’ for partner and children applications made under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, but found that the Immigration Rules and related Home Office guidance failed to take proper account of the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (SSHD) duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship

The suitability requirements in Appendix FM mirror, to a certain extent, the grounds for refusal which are set out in the Immigration Rules, Part 9. For details of these grounds, see: Suitability grounds for refusal and re-entry bans—overview. The Immigration Rules, Part 9, para 9.1.1(a) confirms that the Part 9 grounds for refusing applications for entry clearance or leave to remain do not apply to applications made under the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, save for: Immigration Rules, Part 9, para 9.8.2, which applies only to entry clearance applications (previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intention of the rules or aggravating circumstances). There are also a number of Part 9 grounds which will apply to refusal of leave to enter at port, and in relation to cancellation of existing leave, for persons who have leave under Appendix FM. In many cases, the Home Office guidance which covers the relevant aspect is the same for both Part 9 and Appendix FM suitability grounds,

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Commission Digital Markets Act investigation into Apple’s: (i) rules on steering for the App Store, (ii) compliance with user choice obligations, and (iii) contract terms. Latest development On 23 April 2025, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €500m on Apple for breaching its anti-steering obligation under the DMA.On the same day, the Commission: (i) close its investigation into Apple's user choice obligations under the DMA, and (ii) informed Apple of its preliminary view that Apple's contract terms concerning alternative app distribution breach the DMA. Parties • Apple Background On 5 September 2023, the Commission designated (amongst other undertakings) Apple as a “gatekeeper”, meaning that it must comply with all obligations under the DMA.On 25 March 2024, the Commission opened two non-compliance investigations into Apple’s: (i) rules on steering for the App Store, and (ii) compliance with user choice obligations.On 24 June 2024, the Commission issued its preliminary view that Apple’s steering rules for the App Store were in breach of the DMA because they prevent app developers

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 June 2024; it is longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 102 TFEU investigation into the use of Apple’s App Store by developers offering apps which are directly competing with apps or services offered by Apple (excluding music streaming apps or ebooks/audiobooks apps for which separate proceedings were initiated in cases AT.40437 and AT.40652) Latest development On 24 June 2024, the Commission announced that it had closed its investigation. The Commission made the above decision following the designation of Apple as a

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22/10/2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline CMA DMCCA 2024 investigation into whether Apple should be designated as having SMS in the provision of its mobile platform. Latest development On 22 October 2025, the CMA published its final decision designating Apple with SMS in the supply of its mobile platform in the UK. Parties • Apple Background On 23 January 2025, the CMA published its investigation notice which set out the CMA’s grounds for launching the investigation. On the same day, the CMA published an invitation to comment (ITC) setting out the scope of its investigation, the main avenues of investigation and

CASE HUB See further, timeline below. Case facts Outline CMA DMCCA 2024 proposals for conduct requirements applying to Apple’s mobile platform following Apple’s designation as having SMS in the provision of its mobile platform in the UK. Latest development On 20 October 2026, the CMA launched a consultation on a proposed near field communication (NFC) access conduct requirement to enable developers to access NFC technology on iOS devices on fair, reasonable, transparent and non-discriminatory terms. Parties • Apple Background SMS investigation On 23 January 2025, the CMA launched its investigation into whether Apple should be designated as having SMS in the provision of its mobile platform in the UK.On 23 July 2025, the CMA consulted on its proposed SMS designation and published its roadmap for possible interventions.On 22 October 2025, the CMA published its final decision designating Apple as having SMS in respect of its mobile platform, comprising its mobile operating systems, native app distribution and mobile browser and browser engine. See further: Apple (SMS investigation) (mobile platform).Conduct requirements and voluntary commitments On

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 31 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal by the Apple Inc. against the CMA’s decision of 22 November 2022 to make a market investigation reference in relation to the supply of mobile browsers and mobile browser engines in the UK as well as the distribution of cloud gaming service through app stores on mobile devices in the UK. Latest development On 31 March 2023, the CAT issued its judgment in which it upheld Apple’s appeal. The CAT held that section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002 did not apply to the CMA’s decision of 22 November 2022, as the CMA had published a market study notice, and was proposing to make a reference under section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002 in relation to the matter specified in the market study notice. The time limits in section 131B of the Enterprise Act 2002 therefore applied. The CMA