The courts have been blasted for opening the "floodgates" to millions of refugees after a family was granted the right to live in Britain through a scheme designed for Ukrainian refugees.

The family of six - a mother, father, and four children who were aged 18, 17, eight, and seven in September - were left homeless after their house in Gaza was destroyed by an airstrike during the Israel-Hamas war.

They applied to enter the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme to join the father's brother, a British citizen who has lived in Britain since 2007, but their application was rejected in May last year after the Home Office ruled they did not meet the scheme's requirements.

The family, who have been granted anonymity, appealed the decision, but their case was dismissed by a first-tier immigration tribunal judge in September.

However, following a hearing in January, upper tribunal judges ruled in their favour on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family life.

Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor ruled: "We conclude that the respondent's (Home Office's) refusal of the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants' interests and those of the public.

"On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the considerations weighing on the appellants' side of the scales demonstrates a very strong claim indeed.

"Put another way, there are very compelling or exceptional circumstances.

"Accordingly, the appellants' appeals are allowed."

The judge cited the "exceptionally dangerous" and "dire" security and humanitarian situation in Gaza, warning that the youngest children, now aged seven and nine, were "at a high risk of death or serious injury on a daily basis."

He ruled that it was "overwhelmingly" in their best interests to be in a safer environment together with their parents and siblings.

However, the Home Office warned that allowing the appeal could set a precedent for others, arguing that the absence of a specific resettlement scheme for Palestinians in Gaza was a "significant" factor and that granting the family entry would be "a leap" in Britain's immigration obligations.

The ruling also referenced what the judge described as a "floodgates" argument, with the Home Office warning that an obligation to admit the family could lead to similar claims from those in other global conflicts.

Reform UK MP for Great Yarmouth Rupert Lowe, posting on X, said: "Palestinian migrants claiming 'asylum' must not be welcomed to the UK. No ifs, no buts.

"It simply can't be allowed to happen."

A Home Office spokesman told that the case had been contested "rigorously" and insisted: "The latter court ruled against us on the narrow facts of this specific case.

"Nevertheless, we are clear that there is no resettlement route from Gaza, and we will continue to contest any future claims that do not meet our rules."