In June 2012 the government declared in its Statement of Intent in relation to family applications that "the Immigration Rules will reflect all the factors which, under current statutes and case law can weigh in favour of an Article 8 claim…If an applicant fails to meet the new rules…it should only be in genuinely exceptional circumstances that there would be a breach of Article 8" Practitioners knew from the start that this approach would be subject to challenge in the Courts and we have not had to wait too long for the Immigration Courts to agree. The three decisions of MF (Article 8 - new rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 00393 (IAC), Izuazu (Article 8 - new rules) [2013] UKUT 00045 (IAC) and Ogundimu (Article 8 - new rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 00060 (IAC) have thrown a spanner in the works (see http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/tribunal-decisions/immigration-asylum-chamber). The test of "exceptional circumstances" and "insurmountable obstacles" is rejected, the courts holding that where a claimant does not meet the requirements of the new rules it will be necessary to go on to make an assessment of Article 8 applying the criteria established by law, an approach which the government had sought to do away with. Was the government's approach too hastily introduced? Any case raising an Article 8 point should point the government decision maker to these decisions.