Immigration Appeal: Special Circumstances Warrant Exception

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207506 [NAME], [NAME]

Appellant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 21 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 37-year-old citizen of the United Kingdom whose application for residence under the [NAME] (Victims of Family [APPELLANT]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because it was not satisfied that she would be unable to return to the United Kingdom because she would have no means of independent financial support there or that she would face the impacts of stigma. The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application. [3] The [NAME] issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant has special circumstances, arising from the length of her settlement in New Zealand, her connections to the community, and the contribution she has made through her employment, caring for a young disabled man.

2 [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant does have special circumstances such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government residence instructions.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant was born in the United Kingdom. She visited New Zealand in 2004 and 2005 and returned in 2011 as the holder of a [NAME] visa under the [NAME]. She was granted two subsequent [NAME] visas, the second of which expired in August 2016. She was then unlawfully present in New Zealand until she was granted a [NAME] visa as an exception to instructions in November 2022. [6] Since then, the appellant has held [NAME] visas granted under the victims of domestic [APPELLANT] category of temporary visa instructions, the most recent of which is valid until July 2026. Residence Application [7] On 1 November 2024, the appellant applied for residence under the [NAME] (Victims of Family [APPELLANT]) category. [8] Under the [NAME] (Victims of Family [APPELLANT]) category, applicants who, amongst other things, are unable to return to their home country because they have either no independent means of financial support or be at risk of abuse or exclusion from their community due to stigma, may be granted a resident visa. [9] During its processing of the appellant’s application, Immigration New Zealand raised concerns as to whether the appellant would lack financial support, or face stigma in the United Kingdom, to which the appellant responded. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [10] On 9 July 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application. It was not satisfied that she was unable to return to her home country (a requirement under instruction S4.5.15) because it had not been demonstrated that she would have no means of independent financial support from employment or government support; or that she would be at risk of abuse or exclusion from her community because of stigma.

3 STATUTORY GROUNDS [11] The appellant’s right of appeal arises from section 187(1) of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). Section 187(4) of the Act provides: (4) The grounds for an appeal under this section are that— (a) the relevant decision was not correct in terms of the residence instructions applicable at the time the relevant application for the visa was made; or (b) the special circumstances of the appellant are such that consideration of an exception to those residence instructions should be recommended. [12] The residence instructions referred to in section 187(4) are the Government residence instructions contained in Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [13] On 18 August 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on the ground that her circumstances are special such that an exception to the residence instructions should be considered. [14] The representative makes submissions (19 August 2026) which touch on the correctness of the decision, as well as the appellant’s special circumstances. The representative submits that, having recognised the appellant as a genuine victim of family [APPELLANT], the subsequent decline of her residence application undermines the protective intent of the category. The decline constitutes secondary victimisation and is inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to protect women from gender-based [APPELLANT] and provide effective remedies. [15] The representative also submits that the appellant’s contribution through the essential role she plays in caring for a severely disabled young man, her nexus to New Zealand through her sister and four nieces, and her lack of support and connections to the United Kingdom establish special circumstances. [16] In addition to copies of documents previously provided to Immigration New Zealand regarding the abuse she suffered from her [NAME] partner, the appellant provides on appeal:

4 (a) a statutory declaration (14 August 2026); and (b) a large bundle of letters of support (variously dated in August 2025), including from the family of the disabled man for whom she cares, her own family members, [NAME], colleagues, the [NAME], and people who have met her through her various community activities. [17] The Tribunal considers that these documents are necessary for its determination of whether the appellant has special circumstances, as set out at section 189(3)(b). This assessment is set out below at [36]. ASSESSMENT [18] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal and the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s residence application, along with Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [19] Although the appellant appeals only on the ground of having special circumstances, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that it first assess whether Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application was correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. This is set out below and is followed by an assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances which warrant consideration of an exception by the Minister of Immigration. Whether the Decision is Correct [20] The application was made on 1 November 2024 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because it was not satisfied that the appellant would have no means of independent financial support or be at risk of abuse or exclusion from her community because of stigma, if she returned to the United Kingdom.

5 Relevant instructions [21] Instruction S4.5.2 (effective 28 February 2023) sets out what is required to be eligible for a resident visa under the [NAME] (Victims of Family [APPELLANT]) category which includes the requirement that applicant is unable to return to their home country: S4.5.2 Who is eligible for a resident visa for victims of family [APPELLANT] in New Zealand who: a. are, or have been, in a partnership (see F2.5b) with a New Zealand citizen or residence class visa holder; and b. had intended to seek a residence class visa in New Zealand on the basis of that relationship; and c. that partnership has ended due to family [APPELLANT] by the New Zealand citizen or residence class visa holder or by someone with whom the applicant is living with in a family relationship; and d. are unable to return to their home country because: i. would have no means of independent financial support from employment or other means, and have no ability to gain financial support from other sources; or ii. would be at risk of abuse or exclusion from their community because of stigma; and e. meet health and character requirements (see A4 and A5); may be granted a resident visa. Note: For the purpose of these instructions, 'family relationship' has the meaning set out in s12 of the Family [APPELLANT] 2018. [22] Instruction S4.5.15 states that Immigration New Zealand can refer to any relevant information when determining the ability of an applicant to return to their home country: S4.5.15 Evidence of inability to return to the home country a. [NAME] must provide evidence, in the form of documents and/or information provided at an interview with an immigration officer, that if they returned to their home country they: i. would have no means of independent financial support from employment or other means, and have no ability to gain financial support from other sources; or ii. would be at risk of abuse or exclusion from their community because of stigma. b. [NAME] may refer to any relevant information when determining the ability to return to their home country.

6 Application to the appellant’s circumstances [23] Immigration New Zealand was satisfied that the appellant had been in a partnership with a New Zealand resident (S4.5.2.a); that she had intended to seek residence on the basis of that partnership (S4.5.2.b); that the partnership had ended due to family [APPELLANT] by her partner (S4.5.2.c); and that she met the health and character requirements (S4.5.2.e). [24] The only outstanding requirement was whether the appellant was “unable to return” to the United Kingdom because she would have no means of independent financial support from employment or other means or would be at risk of abuse or exclusion from her community because of stigma. [25] The decision identified that the United Kingdom was a developed country with similar financial and welfare support systems, laws around discrimination and employment opportunities as in New Zealand. Immigration New Zealand accepted that the appellant was well-settled in New Zealand and that she would not be able to stay with her remaining family members in the United Kingdom. However, public information indicated that there was government financial support available for the unemployed which went towards living and accommodation costs. It also noted that the job market was comparable to New Zealand, and it appeared there were positions available similar to the [NAME] role she held in this country. [26] Immigration New Zealand also acknowledged that a return to the United Kingdom would be difficult, but found that emotional distress and a history of family [APPELLANT] there did not indicate that the appellant was unable to return due to the risk of exclusion or abuse from the community. United Kingdom laws and community views did not stigmatise victims of family [APPELLANT]; rather, they protected women against discrimination and provided support comparable to what was available in New Zealand. [27] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly identified that the United Kingdom has a developed system of social welfare benefits and there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant would not qualify or be able to access such support in her home country. Similarly, there was no evidence that she would be unable to return there due to the impacts of stigma.

7 [28] The representative’s submissions on correctness do not directly engage with the basis of the decline decision or explain why this conclusion was not correct, other than an unsupported claim that the decision was inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under CEDAW. [29] The Tribunal (differently constituted) has acknowledged criticism that the ‘at risk’ requirement contained in instruction S4.5.2.d.ii sets a “high threshold”. The policy behind the requirement has been criticised as being unique among such visa regimes in comparable jurisdictions, giving limited protection from [APPELLANT] to “an unduly narrow subset of migrant women”, and failing to fulfil the protective intention of the family [APPELLANT] instructions as they were focussed on “protecting women from the stigma and hardship of divorce in countries perceived to be less progressive in terms of women’s rights”; see [NAME] (Victims of Family [APPELLANT]) [2023] NZIPT 206701, at [37], referring to the research paper of [NAME] or Facilitating Family [APPELLANT]? Immigration Policy and Family [APPELLANT] in New Zealand ([NAME], Wellington, 2023) at pp21–23. [30] However, as the Tribunal in [NAME] (Victims of Family [APPELLANT]) went on to note at [37]: … Notwithstanding these criticisms, Immigration New Zealand had no discretion other than to apply the current instructions, as the making of instructions is a policy decision for the [NAME], as certified by the Minister of Immigration; see section 22 of the Act. The submission by the appellant that the S4.5.2 instructions are not aligned with the objectives of the residence category at S4.5.1.b and New Zealand’s international obligations, is again not a matter within the domain of immigration officers whose role is to apply the extant instructions. [31] The same observation applies in the present appeal. Regardless of the whether these identified criticisms are valid, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand had no discretion but to decline the application. The appellant had not demonstrated that she was unable to return to the United Kingdom because she would have no means of independent financial support, or due to the impact of stigma. Conclusion on correctness [32] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application. The appellant had not demonstrated that she would be without means of independent financial support in the United Kingdom (S4.5.2.d.i) or that she would be at risk of abuse or exclusion from her community in the United Kingdom due to stigma (S4.5.2.d.ii).

8 Whether there are Special Circumstances [33] Where the Tribunal found the decision of Immigration New Zealand to be correct, it has the power to consider whether the circumstances of the appellant are special, such that they warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration of an exception to the residence instructions. [34] Whether an appellant has special circumstances will depend on the particular facts of each case. The Tribunal balances all relevant factors in each case to determine whether the appellant's circumstances, when considered cumulatively, are special. [35] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J. Personal and family circumstances and immigration history [36] The appellant is a 37-year-old citizen of the United Kingdom, the third of four children born to her parents. Her widowed mother lives in the United Kingdom, as do two of her four siblings. She has minimal contact with these family members, but a closer relationship with one sister who lives in the Middle East. [37] The appellant’s [NAME] sister has lived in New Zealand since before 2011 and is a New Zealand citizen. She has four daughters, the appellant’s nieces. [38] The appellant visited New Zealand in 2004 and 2005 and returned in 2011 as the holder of a [NAME] visa granted under the [NAME]. She was granted two subsequent [NAME] visas, the second of which was granted under the [NAME]-to-residence talent (accredited employers) category and expired in August 2016. After that visa expired, she became unlawfully present and remained so until she was granted a [NAME] visa as an exception to instructions in November 2022. [39] Since then, the appellant has held [NAME] visas granted under the victims of family [APPELLANT] category of temporary visa instructions, the most recent of which is valid until July 2026.

9 [40] The appellant’s residence application was declined because she could not meet the restrictive requirements set out in the instructions for applicants under the family [APPELLANT] category. As set out above, Immigration New Zealand had no discretion but to apply the instructions as they currently stand. History of abuse [41] [Withheld] [42] The appellant was 23 years old when she arrived in New Zealand in March 2011, initially to visit her sister and nieces, but also to escape her situation in the United Kingdom. [Withheld] It was there that that she met her partner in late 2011. He was a 33-year-old New Zealand citizen. [43] The appellant’s statements explain how the relationship was initially functional and, despite the age gap, she was very much in love. However, around 2014, her partner relapsed into drug and alcohol use. His behaviour became increasingly erratic and abusive. After holding steady employment in the [NAME] since 2011, the appellant lost her job in 2015. The abuse at home meant that she could not concentrate, kept crying at [NAME] and was not performing because of the stress. Without employment, she lost her [NAME]-to-residence pathway and became unlawful. Her partner then used her immigration status to manipulate and trap her, promising her that he would support a partnership-based visa, but then threatening to have her deported if she tried to leave the relationship. [44] [Withheld] [45] The appellant describes how, in around May 2019, she decided to leave the relationship after a particular incident with her partner yelling and threatening her. She found [NAME] to support herself and, when immigration authorities approached her in 2022, she began the process to regularise her status. [46] Immigration New Zealand accepted, through the evidence provided in the appellant’s temporary vias applications, that the appellant has been a victim of family [APPELLANT]. The Tribunal concurs and also accepts that this abusive relationship was the primary reason that the appellant, who had between 2011 and 2015 held employment and was on a pathway to achieve residence through her [NAME], became unlawfully in New Zealand. [47] [Withheld]

10 [48] The appellant explains that, despite her history, she has continued to be sober and, since leaving her partner, has worked hard on her mental health to build a life that is stable and contributing. Her father has now died, and her relationship with her mother and two siblings in the United Kingdom is not close. A return to that country would jeopardise years of recovery and [NAME] her away from the country she now considers home and from her [NAME], [NAME], community and support. She states: I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking to be seen for who I am now, not just what has happened to me. I am someone who has escaped a cycle of [APPELLANT] and abuse, and who has turned that into a life of purpose and contribution in New Zealand. I am not trying to run away from anything anymore. I am trying to stay in a place where I finally found safety and a sense of belonging. [49] The appellant did not [NAME] any steps to regularise her status after the relationship ended in 2019. But having considered the evidence from Immigration New Zealand’s compliance officers which is included in the file, the Tribunal considers that, once she was approached, the appellant was frank and candid about her situation and the officers were compassionate and proactive in advising her how she could return to lawful status. Further, many letters from the appellant’s [NAME] reference the progress she has made rebuilding her life after the abusive relationship. These letters illustrate how the appellant has been open about her situation and how her [NAME] and community have continued to support her as she has rebuilt her life. Contribution to New Zealand through employment [50] Having arrived here when she was just 23 years old, the appellant has now lived in New Zealand for over 15 years (albeit six of those years without holding a valid visa). This constitutes most of her adult life. [51] Between 2011 and 2015, the appellant worked primarily in the [NAME]. It does not appear she held any employment between 2015 and 2019 while she was in a relationship with her [NAME] partner. [52] After the relationship ended in 2019, the appellant found employment as the main [NAME] for a profoundly autistic, non-verbal child, [NAME]. [NAME] is now 18 years old. According to letters from his mother, father, older sister, and maternal and paternal grandmothers (provided to Immigration New Zealand and new letters to the Tribunal)) the appellant has played an indispensable part in [NAME]’s development and care, and her commitment to him has had an overwhelmingly positive impact on all family members.

11 [53] Separate letters from [NAME]’s mother and father, and a letter his father wrote in [NAME]’s “voice” to try and explain the relationship between [NAME] and the appellant, are provided on appeal. They explain how, prior to employing the appellant, the family had employed a succession of carers but was at breaking point in managing [NAME]’s needs. Since 2019, the appellant had become a cornerstone in [NAME]’s life, and a person that all the family had come to depend upon. While the other families they knew with children with similar disabilities had needed to place their children into fulltime care when they were around 11-13 years old, the appellant’s support had meant [APPELLANT] had been able to remain at home, while both parents had been able to pursue careers in the [NAME]. The appellant’s contribution had been life-changing for them and the couple expressed how they were truly in the appellant’s debt. [54] The father describes how [NAME] is non-verbal, very limited in his abilities, but also extremely determined. He can become obsessed with particular actions which have historically been very difficult to manage, and he could become physically violent when agitated. It had taken the parents nine years of intensive toilet training to get [NAME] to a moderately reliable level. They both found it very difficult to [NAME] [NAME] outside the home because of his behaviours. But the appellant had been patient and determined, and with time and consistency, had been instrumental in helping [NAME] manage those behaviours and interact appropriately in the community. The appellant had been especially important during the COVID-19 pandemic. After she joined the family’s “bubble” she took [NAME] out to the [APPELLANT] and on drives, providing some essential respite for the family. [55] Over the years, and as [NAME] physically matured (and was now the height of a tall man), the appellant had spent countless hours managing his actions at [COMPANY] and in the community, including spending days at [COMPANY] returning him to class when he ran away, or hours with him as he obsessed over revolving doors at a swimming pool complex. She had significantly improved his toileting regime and reliability and had been responsible for him now tolerating injections. She, not the parents, took him to most of his dental and medical appointments, and had also worked with him so that he could accompany her to the supermarket and remain calm while shopping. This was not always easy, given [NAME]’s size. [56] The father describes how the appellant takes [NAME] to many places that he and his wife do not [NAME] their son because they find his behaviour too difficult to manage. For example, he had not been to a café or restaurant without the appellant for many years – her support was essential to help manage his

12 behaviours in those settings and it meant that [NAME] had been able to participate in family gatherings and celebrations. The appellant also had [APPELLANT] stay at her flat overnight once a week, which he enjoyed and which gave his parents and sister a break. [57] [NAME]’s parents also explain how the appellant had acted as a tireless advocate for the family and the wider disability community in accessing appropriate services for [NAME] (and others) with government departments. More recently, she had also been involved in training other carers. The parents were aware they would need to transition [NAME] into adult life where the appellant would not be so central, but the appellant’s assistance would be crucial to that process. Regardless, the thought of her leaving New Zealand was very difficult for them all to contemplate. [58] [NAME]’s parents also commented on the close relationship which the appellant had formed with their daughter ([NAME]’s older sister), their parents and wider family members. She was also a “second mum” to her own four nieces who had grown up with her around. They admired her wide range of [NAME], and her connections in [NAME], given her musical talents. [59] Letters from both [NAME]’s grandmothers and his older sister (provided to Immigration New Zealand and new letters to the Tribunal) emphasise the fundamentally positive impact the appellant has had on [NAME] and the family. His sister describes how the appellant, whom she refers to as “aunty”, had supported her navigating mental health challenges in high [COMPANY] and university and how she continued to be a trusted confidante into adulthood. [60] Many of the letters to the Tribunal from the appellant’s [NAME] mention [NAME], the challenges the appellant has faced in managing his behaviours, and the commitment that she has shown to him and his family. They talk of her genuine passion for, and skill in, her role and the contribution that her [NAME] has made in the disability sector. A letter from a teacher at the [COMPANY] [NAME] previously attended praised the appellant’s “outstanding level of professionalism, empathy and skill”, and described how she was an advocate for people with additional needs in the [COMPANY] and wider disability community. [61] While it is recognised that she will not remain a [NAME] for [NAME] indefinitely, the evidence is abundantly clear that the appellant has had a significant and positive impact on [NAME] and his family. Her bond with him is deep and enduring, and her commitment to his care and development has significantly reduced the burden on

13 parents who were struggling to cope. Her role has allowed them to develop their careers independently of caring for their severely disabled son. [62] Beyond that, the tone and nature of the letters provided make apparent the genuine affection and respect that all family members have for the appellant and the role she has played in their lives. Although he is not a child anymore, the Tribunal considers that, as a vulnerable young adult, [NAME]’s best interests are served by the appellant remaining in New Zealand. Settlement in New Zealand [63] Beyond her employment, the evidence also demonstrates that over 15 years, and especially since the end of the abusive relationship, the appellant has settled in New Zealand as her home. [64] The appellant’s sister has lived her since the early 2000s, is a New Zealand citizen and has four daughters (the appellant’s nieces). [NAME] writes on behalf of her three younger sisters (their ages are not known to the Tribunal) explaining that the appellant has not shared her immigration predicament with them as she does not want to cause them distress. The [NAME] describes the appellant as a strong woman to whom they all look up to, especially since the separation of their parents in 2015 and the absence of their father. Throughout their lives, the appellant has provided steadfast support and been a “constant source of strength and guidance” and a strong female figure whom they all admire. The nieces would be distraught if the appellant was unable to remain in New Zealand. [65] Dozens of letters from [NAME] are also provided on appeal – many who have known the appellant for more than five or 10 years, those who had known her while she was with her [NAME] partner, and others only since she left that relationship. They all write individual and personalised letters, attesting to the connections the appellant has made with them through various channels, but constant themes emerge – the appellant’s warmth, kindness, openness, resilience, generosity and positivity. Various writers talk about how she has supported them through weddings, pregnancies, tertiary assignments, childcare dilemmas, relationship break-ups, and new business ventures. Many letters emphasise the loss for them, the community and New Zealand if the appellant was unable to remain here. Others reference the abuse the appellant has endured and urge compassion for her circumstances, noting that she should not be the person

14 punished and forced to leave New Zealand because of the actions of an abusive New Zealand-citizen. [66] The letters also highlight the appellant’s volunteer [NAME] for a [NAME] and her contributions to her [NAME] [NAME], where she has performed in many paid and volunteer performances. The head of a [COMPANY] of which the appellant is a member notes that, in addition to the valuable employment she holds, the appellant is a talented singer and musician who has helped tutor young performers. She had taken on the group’s social media presence and raised its profile, increased community engagement and helped to attract new members. He writes that the appellant’s “energy, professionalism and creativity have made her a cornerstone of our group’s success”. Health and character requirements [67] Immigration New Zealand found that the appellant met the residence requirements for health and character. She had provided a clear police certificate from the United Kingdom (11 December 2024) and the Tribunal has obtained a clear Ministry of Justice conviction history certificate (19 May 2026). Discussion on special circumstances [68] The appellant retains a nexus to the United Kingdom where her mother and two of her four siblings live. However, she does not have a close relationship with those family members. In contrast, she has deep bonds with her sister and nieces in New Zealand. [69] Although the appellant’s 15 years here has included a significant period of unlawful presence, that was largely during, and as a result of, the abusive relationship she endured. She has extracted herself from that relationship and rebuilt her life with the support of her community of [NAME], companions, and colleagues, to whom she, in turn, provides support. [70] There is no question in the Tribunal’s mind that, during the 15 years she has lived here, the appellant’s settlement in, and contribution to, this country set her apart from many appellants. Her [NAME] as a [NAME] has had a material and substantial impact on [NAME] and his family. Even when that employment arrangement ends, her skills and experience in the [NAME] will be valuable well into the future. Beyond that, the appellant has forged relationships through her family, [NAME], employment, music and [NAME].

15 Overall, she has demonstrated a level of connection that makes her circumstances unusual and uncommon. [71] The appellant is well-settled and contributing to New Zealand and the Tribunal unhesitatingly recommends that the Minister consider granting her a resident visa (or a permanent resident visa) as an exception to instructions so that she can enjoy the certainty that comes with having a permanent right to remain in New Zealand and continue to thrive in, and contribute to, this country. Conclusion on special circumstances [72] Having regard to all her circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [73] Pursuant to section 188(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 2009, the Tribunal confirms the decision of Immigration New Zealand to be correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions but considers that the special circumstances of the appellant are such as to warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions. [74] Pursuant to section 190(5) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration: (a) is requested to consider whether a residence class visa should be granted, as an exception to residence instructions, to the appellant; and (b) may, if granting a resident visa, impose conditions on the visa in accordance with section 50 of the Act. [75] Pursuant to section 190(6) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration is not obliged to give reasons in relation to any decision made as a result of a consideration of the Tribunal’s recommendation. Order as to Depersonalised and Abridged Research Copy [76] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal orders that, until further order, the research copy of this decision is to be depersonalised by

16 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member removal of the appellant’s name and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant or the members of the family for whom she works, and the abridgement, or part thereof, of [41], [42], [44], and [47] to protect the appellant’s privacy. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member