My bad, as I believe some young people today sometimes say.
Many thanks to the excellent Philip Nathan of 36 Bedford Row, one of the juniors in the case, for a more authoritative explanation of the 3rd party Supreme Court case, which I reproduce from another forum with his permission:
The Supreme Court heard the linked cases of AM, VS, SA, KA and AM(2) during the first three days of this week. After hearing from counsel for the ECOs, Monica Carrs Frisk QC, the Court indicated that they didn’t need to hear replies from the Appellants on the issues of joint sponsorship under the rules and whether the existing rules relating to spouses and dependant relatives and also children under 297, allowed for reliance on third party funds. In light of this, it seems that they will be ruling on both issues in our favour thereby reversing both AA (Bangladesh) and AM (Ethiopia).
It seems likely also that questions may be asked as to why the SSHD seemingly ignored Collins J’s ruling in Arman Ali. Issues relating to Article 8 and 317 (iii) remain undecided and the Court gave no indication of their position other than to seek further submissions in reply. The case of AM(2) recently was added to the cases which were before the Court of Appeal last year, in order to consider the issue of Article 8 and Article 14 with respect to disabled sponsors. This is where the Blogger’s [that’s me!] confusion may have arisen as that hearing was was due to proceed yesterday afternoon immediately after the main issue, but the SSHD conceded Entry Clearance for that Appellant only, following the court’s indications at the end of the main hearing. Leading counsel in the various cases were: Manjit Gill QC, Michael Fordham QC and Lord Pannick QC (+ Richard Drabble QC on the papers in SA but who was unfortunately unavailable for the hearing). The juniors were those that appeared before the Court of Appeal last year plus Joanna Stevens for AM(2).
There was no indication as to when the Court will hand down its judgment.
Again, many thanks Philip.