Search Results for: Immigration Rules 50

Click the case name for better results:

Association Nationale D’Assistance Aux Frontieres Pour Les Etrangers v Ministre de l’Interieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivites territoriales et de l’Immigration: ECJ 29 Nov 2011

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 – Schengen Borders Code – Article 13 – Refusal of entry – Article 5 – Entry into the Schengen nationals of third countries subject to the visa requirement – Ministerial Circular – Back of third countries subject to the visa requirement and hold a temporary residence permit – Visa back … Continue reading Association Nationale D’Assistance Aux Frontieres Pour Les Etrangers v Ministre de l’Interieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivites territoriales et de l’Immigration: ECJ 29 Nov 2011

Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 25 Mar 2004

The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act. Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be removed by the clearest of words. A right remained, but it was severely … Continue reading Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 25 Mar 2004

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Tohur Ali: CA 18 Dec 1987

The Court considered rule 50 under which ‘parent’ was defined as including – ‘an adoptive parent, where there has been a genuine transfer of parental responsibility on the ground of the original parents’ inability to care for the child . . ‘ Held: (a majority) This expression was not confined to adoption under a ‘legally … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Tohur Ali: CA 18 Dec 1987

Home Office (Decision Notice) FS50347500: ICO 15 Aug 2011

The complainant requested information from the UK Border Agency (the UKBA) relating to the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 367. The UKBA confirmed information was held but refused to disclose it by reference to sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner investigated and finds … Continue reading Home Office (Decision Notice) FS50347500: ICO 15 Aug 2011

Home Office (Central Government) FS50565262: ICO 9 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to illegal migrants who have been granted Discretionary Leave and in particular those who benefited from paragraph 353B of the Immigration Rules (Exceptional Circumstances). The Home Office refused this request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office applied section … Continue reading Home Office (Central Government) FS50565262: ICO 9 Jun 2015

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Tohur Ali: CA 1988

References: [1988] 2 FLR 523, [1988] Imm AR 237, [1988] Fam Law 289 Links: Refworld Coram: May, Balcombe, Woolf LJJ The Court considered rule 50 under which ‘parent’ was defined as including – ‘an adoptive parent, where there has been a genuine transfer of parental responsibility on the ground of the original parents’ inability to … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Tohur Ali: CA 1988

AA069062014 and Others: AIT 30 Aug 2017

Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases. Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting within the law and applying the relevant substantive law to the facts as found. That is partly because … Continue reading AA069062014 and Others: AIT 30 Aug 2017

KF and Others (Entry Clearance, Relatives of Refugees) Syria: UTIAC 11 Dec 2019

1. In applications for entry clearance, the starting and significant point in applications for entry clearance is the Article 8 rights of the sponsor or others in the UK. A fact sensitive analysis is essential. 2. There is no blanket prohibition on the relatives of refugees other than a spouse and/or children. 3. As was … Continue reading KF and Others (Entry Clearance, Relatives of Refugees) Syria: UTIAC 11 Dec 2019

Chege (Section 117D D Article 8 D Approach : Kenya): UTIAC 5 Mar 2015

The correct approach, where an appeal on human rights grounds has been brought in seeking to resist deportation, is to consider: i. is the appellant a foreign criminal as defined by s117D (2) (a), (b) or (c); ii. if so, does he fall within paragraph 399 or 399A of the Immigration Rules; iii. if not … Continue reading Chege (Section 117D D Article 8 D Approach : Kenya): UTIAC 5 Mar 2015

Abbasi (Rule 43; Para 322, : Accountants’ Evidence) Pakistan: UTIAC 8 Jan 2020

(1) The Upper Tribunal can apply rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 of its own motion. (2) The use of fraud before the Upper Tribunal constitutes an abuse of process such as to amount to a ‘procedural irregularity’ for the purposes of rule 43(2)(d). (3) In a case involving a decision … Continue reading Abbasi (Rule 43; Para 322, : Accountants’ Evidence) Pakistan: UTIAC 8 Jan 2020

MBT, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Restricted Leave; ILR; Disability Discrimination): UTIAC 13 Dec 2019

(i) A decision of the Secretary of State not to grant indefinite leave to remain to a person subject to the restricted leave policy (‘the RL policy’) does not normally engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Article 8 may be engaged by a decision to refuse to grant indefinite leave … Continue reading MBT, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Restricted Leave; ILR; Disability Discrimination): UTIAC 13 Dec 2019

MH (Review; Slip Rule; Church Witnesses) Iran: UTIAC 11 Mar 2020

(i) Part 4 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 contains a ‘toolkit’ of powers, the proper use of which saves time and expense and furthers the overriding objective. (ii) A judge of the FtT who is minded to grant permission to appeal on the basis of a seemingly obvious … Continue reading MH (Review; Slip Rule; Church Witnesses) Iran: UTIAC 11 Mar 2020

Bajracharya, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Para 34 – Variation – Validity): UTIAC 20 Nov 2019

(1) Paragraph 34 [A-F] of the Immigration Rules is to be construed by the application of the ordinary principles of statutory construction, which start from the natural meaning of the words in their context. (2) Paragraph 34 requires applicants to make an application for leave to remain in accordance with the provisions of 34. (3) … Continue reading Bajracharya, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Para 34 – Variation – Validity): UTIAC 20 Nov 2019

Buci (Part 5A: ‘Partner’ : Albania): UTIAC 27 Feb 2020

(1) The word ‘partner’ is not defined in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The definition of ‘partner’ in GEN 1.2 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules does not govern the way in which ‘partner’ is to be interpreted in Part 5A. (2) A person who satisfies the definition in … Continue reading Buci (Part 5A: ‘Partner’ : Albania): UTIAC 27 Feb 2020

Sahebi (Para 352(III): Meaning of ‘Existed’) Pakistan: UTIAC 12 Nov 2019

On its true construction, para 352A(iii) of the Immigration Rules is satisfied by showing nothing more than the formal existence of a marriage or civil partnership as at the time of the refugee’s departure from his/her country of former habitual residence. In contrast to less formal relationships, there is no requirement to show that the … Continue reading Sahebi (Para 352(III): Meaning of ‘Existed’) Pakistan: UTIAC 12 Nov 2019

Nimo (Appeals: Duty of Disclosure : Ghana): UTIAC 27 Feb 2020

(1) In an immigration appeal, the Secretary of State’s duty of disclosure is not knowingly to mislead: CM (EM country guidance; disclosure) Zimbabwe CG [2013] UKUT 59, citing R v SSHD ex parte Kerrouche No 1 [1997] Imm AR 610. (2) The Upper Tribunal was wrong to hold in Miah (interviewer’s comments; disclosure; fairness) [2014] … Continue reading Nimo (Appeals: Duty of Disclosure : Ghana): UTIAC 27 Feb 2020

Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship:Delay) Albania: UTIAC 19 Mar 2020

1. The starting point in any consideration undertaken by the Secretary of State (‘the respondent’) as to whether to deprive a person of British citizenship must be made by reference to the rules and policy in force at the time the decision is made. Rule of law values indicate that the respondent is entitled to … Continue reading Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship:Delay) Albania: UTIAC 19 Mar 2020

Regina (on The Application of MW) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Fast Track Appeal: Devaseelan Guidelines): UTIAC 16 Dec 2019

(1) The fact that an appeal was decided pursuant to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 does not mean that the weight to be attached to the decision necessarily falls to be materially reduced, when applying the Guidelines in Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKAIT 702. … Continue reading Regina (on The Application of MW) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Fast Track Appeal: Devaseelan Guidelines): UTIAC 16 Dec 2019

Patel (British Citizen Child – Deportation): UTIAC 29 Jan 2020

(1) In its application to a ‘qualifying child’ within the meaning of section 117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 117C(5) imposes the same two requirements as are specified in paragraph 399(a)(ii) of the Immigration Rules; namely, that it would be unduly harsh for the child to leave the United Kingdom and … Continue reading Patel (British Citizen Child – Deportation): UTIAC 29 Jan 2020

Alliance of Turkish Business People Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Apr 2020

Appeal and cross appeal concerning the appellant’s challenge to changes made by the respondent to the Immigration Rules and guidance affecting the right of Turkish self-employed businesspeople and their dependants to obtain indefinite leave to remain (‘ILR’) in the United Kingdom. Citations: [2020] EWCA Civ 553 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 24 … Continue reading Alliance of Turkish Business People Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Apr 2020

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Salem: HL 3 Mar 1999

The House of Lords has the power to hear a case where the parties have in effect settled and there remains no lis at issue, but the House will not hear such an academic case where no general issue of importance is at stake, or the facts are particular. There must be a good reason … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Salem: HL 3 Mar 1999

Yarce (Adequate Maintenance: Benefits) Colombia: UTIAC 30 Nov 2012

UTIAC 1. The requirement to show that a person or persons can be maintained (or will maintain themselves) ‘adequately’ without recourse to public funds has long been a requirement of the immigration rules. It continues to be a requirement for various categories of person in the amended rules that came into force in July 2012. … Continue reading Yarce (Adequate Maintenance: Benefits) Colombia: UTIAC 30 Nov 2012

Naz (Subsisting Marriage – Standard of Proof) Pakistan: UTIAC 16 Jan 2012

i) It is for a claimant to establish that the requirements of the Immigration Rules are met or that an immigration decision would be an interference with established family life. In both cases, the relevant standard for establishing the facts is the balance of probabilities. ii) Post decision visits by a sponsor to his spouse … Continue reading Naz (Subsisting Marriage – Standard of Proof) Pakistan: UTIAC 16 Jan 2012

OR (Student: Ability To Follow Course) Bangladesh: UTIAC 5 Nov 2011

UTIAC 1. The version of the rules in force on 6 February 2010 contained no general requirement that a student be able to follow the course for which he had been admitted.2. The burden of proof as to change of circumstances since an entry clearance was granted lies on the respondent, and it is difficult … Continue reading OR (Student: Ability To Follow Course) Bangladesh: UTIAC 5 Nov 2011

New London College Ltd, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Feb 2012

The court was asked whether the removal of a Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence issued by UKBA which enabled it to issue a visa letter or confirmation of acceptance of studies to non-EEA students lacked the necessary legislative authority because the system under which the decision was taken was contained in policy guidance, not … Continue reading New London College Ltd, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Feb 2012

Patel (Consideration of Sapkota – Unfairness) India: UTIAC 16 Dec 2011

UTIAC (1) There is no substantive segregation of considerations going to an extension of stay and removal where the appellant seeks leave to remain outside the rules on 395C factors and these are considered on their merits with the consequence that the respondent states removal will follow even if powers under s 47 of the … Continue reading Patel (Consideration of Sapkota – Unfairness) India: UTIAC 16 Dec 2011

Chapti and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: Admn 16 Dec 2011

Challenge to the amendments to paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules requiring the foreign spouses and partners of British citizens or persons settled in the UK applying for what I shall refer to as ‘spouse visas’, that is for leave to enter the UK with a view to settlement, to produce a test certificate of … Continue reading Chapti and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: Admn 16 Dec 2011

Abdulaziz, Cabales And Balkandali v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985

The claimants had each settled within the UK in accordance with Immigration rules, but now challenged refusal of leave to remain to their husbands who sought to join them. Held: Article 8 did not impose a ‘general obligation on the part of a Contracting State to respect the choice by married couples of the country … Continue reading Abdulaziz, Cabales And Balkandali v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985

Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 Oct 2018

Conjoined hearing of appeals in respect of three judgments covering the cases of five individual immigrants who were placed in detention for periods pending possible removal to other EU Member States pursuant to the asylum claim arrangements under the so-called Dublin III Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council … Continue reading Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 Oct 2018

Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2011

The claimant appealed against the refusal of the Secretary of State to grant him leave to remain to a non-EEA economic migrant. The claimant had entered as a student and stayed working as a physiotherapy assistant. He said that on the change of rules he should have had the benefit of transitional provisions to provide … Continue reading Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2011

Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 25 Oct 2010

The claimant, a 32 year old Pakistani national, had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant worker. He had worked as a physiotherapy assistant, and said that this should have entitled him to 50 points under the assessment system. Though his occupation did not qualify him of itself, he said that … Continue reading Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 25 Oct 2010

Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1): Admn 21 Aug 2008

The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by torture, and in particular by the hiding of his detention for many months … Continue reading Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1): Admn 21 Aug 2008

SM and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 May 2013

The court was asked as to the impact of section 55 of the 2009 Act on the consideration by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of applications by children, made outside the scope of the Immigration Rules, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Judges: Holman J Citations: [2013] EWHC 1144 (Admin), … Continue reading SM and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 May 2013

Benkaddouri v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2003

Meaning and ambit of the provision in rule 33 of the Immigration and Asylum (Procedure) Rules 2000 that in the case of a failure by the Home Office to comply with a procedural direction the adjudicator may allow an asylum-seeker’s appeal without considering its merits. Citations: [2003] EWCA Civ 1250, [2004] INLR 1 Links: Bailii … Continue reading Benkaddouri v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2003

English UK Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Jul 2010

Foskett J interpreted Pankina: ‘The Court of Appeal held that the revised criterion could not be put in place by virtue of a process of issuing guidance. The ratio of the decision appears to me to be that a provision that reflects a substantive criterion for eligibility for admission or leave to remain must be … Continue reading English UK Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Jul 2010

Al-Nashif v Bulgaria: ECHR 20 Jun 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion, abuse of right of petition); Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 9 or Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedingsthe Bulgarian authorities had deported the first … Continue reading Al-Nashif v Bulgaria: ECHR 20 Jun 2002

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): HL 8 Dec 2005

Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the decisions had probably been obtained by torture committed by foreign powers, and should not … Continue reading A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): HL 8 Dec 2005

Maslov v Austria: ECHR 22 Mar 2007

Citations: 1638/03, [2007] ECHR 224 Links: Bailii, Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008 The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly … Continue reading Maslov v Austria: ECHR 22 Mar 2007

Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited: HL 17 Feb 2000

A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue under a deed of covenant entered into … Continue reading Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited: HL 17 Feb 2000

Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015

The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods were taken lawfully. Held: The segregation was not authorised by the applicable legislation: ‘rule 45 . . (1) enables the governor … Continue reading Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015

KA and others (Adequacy of Maintenance) Pakistan: IAT 4 Sep 2006

The Tribunal adopted the level of income support as the test of adequate maintenance – at that level it could not be said that the family were not properly maintained but neither should it be contemplated that immigrants would live below that level. Judges: Mr C M G Ockelton DP Citations: [2006] UKAIT 00065, [2007] … Continue reading KA and others (Adequacy of Maintenance) Pakistan: IAT 4 Sep 2006

SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 May 2013

Laws LJ’s observed that for a claim under article 8 of the ECHR to prevail, it must be ‘a very strong claim indeed’ Judges: Laws, Black LJJ, Mann J Citations: [2013] EWCA Civ 550, [2013] WLR(D) 192, [2013] Imm AR 1106, [2014] 1 WLR 998 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Human Rights Act 1998 Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 May 2013

O’Donoghue and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 14 Dec 2010

Citations: 34848/07, [2010] ECHR 2022, [2011] Fam Law 234, 30 BHRC 85, [2011] 2 FCR 197, (2011) 53 EHRR 1, [2011] 1 FLR 1307 Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights Jurisdiction: Human Rights Citing: See Also – O’Donoghue and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Nov-2008 . . Approved – Baiai and others, Regina … Continue reading O’Donoghue and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 14 Dec 2010

C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 28 Jul 2008

The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody. Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules would have infringed the human rights of the children to whom such restraint was to … Continue reading C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 28 Jul 2008

Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008

The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing human rights grounds. The respondent had a policy that the applicant must return … Continue reading Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008

Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v The Netherlands: ECHR 31 Jan 2006

A Brazilian mother came to the Netherlands in 1994 and set up home with a Dutch national but not applying for a residence permit. In 1996 they had a daughter who became a Dutch national. In 1997 they split up and the daughter remained with her father. It was eventually confirmed by the Dutch courts … Continue reading Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v The Netherlands: ECHR 31 Jan 2006

Boultif v Switzerland: ECHR 2 Aug 2001

The applicant complained under Article 8 that the Swiss authorities had not renewed his residence permit, after which he had been separated from his wife, a Swiss citizen and who could not be expected to follow him to Algeria. Switzerland argued that his conviction for an offence of violence was sufficient justification for interfering with … Continue reading Boultif v Switzerland: ECHR 2 Aug 2001

Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitie-kanslern (Freedom To Provide Services): ECJ 13 Mar 2007

(Grand Chamber) Principle of judicial protection National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law Procedural autonomy Principles of equivalence and effectiveness Interim protection. ‘it is for the national courts to interpret the procedural rules governing actions brought before them, such as the requirement for … Continue reading Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitie-kanslern (Freedom To Provide Services): ECJ 13 Mar 2007

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others: CA 23 May 2007

The claimants challenged rules which meant that certain immigrants subject to immigration control were unable to marry, save only those marrying according to the rites of the Church of England. Held: The rules were not justified by evidence that a sufficient number of sham marriages, or that the number of such marriages had any overall … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others: CA 23 May 2007

LD (Article 14; Same-Sex Relationships) Brazil: IAT 10 Sep 2006

Prior to the coming into force of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, it was not a breach of art 14 of the ECHR amounting to unlawful discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation to refuse to grant leave to a person in a same-sex relationship who could not satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules … Continue reading LD (Article 14; Same-Sex Relationships) Brazil: IAT 10 Sep 2006

International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another: CA 3 Nov 2005

An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction. Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in which a dispute between a Finnish company and a Finnish Trade Union and an international … Continue reading International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another: CA 3 Nov 2005

Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 2005

The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not invalidate them. Held: The appeal was allowed. The confiscation orders made by the … Continue reading Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 2005

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Ladejobi: EAT 1 Nov 1998

The tribunal was asked as to the date from which time started to run for the purposes of calculating the 42-day period within which an appeal should have been brought from a decision of an Employment Tribunal, if it was to be brought at all. Held: Morison J said that Section 7 of the Interpretation … Continue reading London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Ladejobi: EAT 1 Nov 1998

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Deaprtment ex parte Swati: CA 1986

A notice refusing leave to a visitor to enter which simply gave as the reasons:- ‘I am not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking entry only for this limited period.’ was sufficient compliance with the duty to give reasons for the decision imposed by the relevant Regulations: ‘The answer [to the question why did the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Deaprtment ex parte Swati: CA 1986

The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK v The Humber Bridge Board and the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions: CA 25 Jun 2003

Regulations specifying the tolls for the Humber Bridge did not mention a charge for large buses. Held: The same rules had to be applied in construing statutory instruments as applied in construing statutes. The explanatory note issued with the Regulation made it clear beyond peradventure that the ommission was a clerical error, and the Regulation … Continue reading The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK v The Humber Bridge Board and the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions: CA 25 Jun 2003

F v Switzerland: ECHR 18 Dec 1987

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 12; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedingsA Swiss law placed limitations on the remarriage of someone who had been the guilty party in previous divorce proceedings. Held: The Court explained that … Continue reading F v Switzerland: ECHR 18 Dec 1987

Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation. Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, … Continue reading Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Higgs and Mitchell v The Minister of National Security and others: PC 14 Dec 1999

(Bahamas) The applicants appealed against sentences of death, saying that the executions would be unlawful while there was a pending appeal to the OAS. Held: The appeals failed. The Bahamas was a member of the Organisation of American States, but the rules of that organisation had not been incorporated into its law. The planned execution … Continue reading Higgs and Mitchell v The Minister of National Security and others: PC 14 Dec 1999

Adil v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 – Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) – Articles 20 and 21 – Abolition of border control at internal borders – Checks within the territory – Measures having an equivalent effect to border checks – … Continue reading Adil v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial. Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act did not apply to extradition procceedings, and they might also be admissible under the … Continue reading In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve: ECJ 20 Sep 2001

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal du travail de Nivelles – Belgium. Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) – Council Directive 93/96/EEC – Right of residence for students – National legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allowance only for nationals, … Continue reading Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve: ECJ 20 Sep 2001

Temiz, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 13 Oct 2006

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to give him permission to stay in the United Kingdom. As a Turkish national he had absconded after being ordered to be removed, and had since gone into business here. Held: The effect of the protocol was to prevent a member state bringing in … Continue reading Temiz, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 13 Oct 2006

Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005

The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005

HL v United Kingdom: ECHR 2004

Lack of Patient Safeguards was Infringement The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further pending suitable arrangements being made for … Continue reading HL v United Kingdom: ECHR 2004

Zalewska v Department for Social Development: HL 12 Nov 2008

(Northern Ireland) The claimant challenged the rules restricting payment of benefits to nationals from the 8 latest European Accession states to those with an unbroken 12 month working record. The applicant came from Poland and worked at two authorised employments but failed to find a third. She had left her partner because of his violence. … Continue reading Zalewska v Department for Social Development: HL 12 Nov 2008

Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

UK Border Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2009

The complainant requested information concerning changes in the implementation of immigration rules. The public authority refused to provide this information under section 12 (the appropriate limit) and it invited the complainant to narrow his request. His refined request was partly refused under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (prejudice to the conduct of public affairs), the majority … Continue reading UK Border Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2009

Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A: HL 23 Oct 2003

The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult. Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They must show that their children are children in need within the meaning of section 17(10). … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A: HL 23 Oct 2003

Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden: ECHR 23 Sep 1982

Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim (Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years. Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is general … Continue reading Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden: ECHR 23 Sep 1982

Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: SC 29 Jul 2015

After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day the academic year begins. The claimant came as a child with her mother some … Continue reading Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: SC 29 Jul 2015

Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland: ECHR 6 Jul 2010

(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. Held: To enforce the order would be an unjustifiable interference … Continue reading Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland: ECHR 6 Jul 2010

Kaur (Entry Clearance – Date of Application) India: UTIAC 22 Jul 2013

(1) The date on which an application for entry clearance is made is not effectively established by paragraph 30 or any other provisions of the Immigration Rules, and has therefore to be established by reference to statute and secondary legislation. (2) An application for entry clearance that does not comply with the requirement in regulation … Continue reading Kaur (Entry Clearance – Date of Application) India: UTIAC 22 Jul 2013

Arshad and Others (Tier 1 Applicants – Funding – ‘Availability’ : Pakistan): UTIAC 27 Jun 2016

(i) The effect of the amendment of the regime in paragraph 41/SD of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules via HC628, dated 06 September 2013, is that any application for entry clearance or leave made before 01 October 2013 is to be decided in accordance with the Rules in force on 30 September 2013. (ii) … Continue reading Arshad and Others (Tier 1 Applicants – Funding – ‘Availability’ : Pakistan): UTIAC 27 Jun 2016

Philipson (ILR – Not PBS: Evidence) India: UTIAC 6 Jan 2012

i) A decision on an application under rule 134 of the Immigration Rules for indefinite leave to remain is a not a points-based decision to which s.85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended by s.19 of the UK Borders Act 2007 applies. ii) Post decision evidence of a back-dated wage increase … Continue reading Philipson (ILR – Not PBS: Evidence) India: UTIAC 6 Jan 2012

Bhudia, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Para 284(Iv) and (Ix)) (IJR): UTIAC 2 Dec 2015

(i) The correct construction of paragraph 284(iv) of the Immigration Rules is that the applicant has a period of 28 days within which to make an extension of stay application, measured from the date immediately following the last day of leave in the United Kingdom. (ii) The purported requirement in Form FLR(M) that an application … Continue reading Bhudia, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Para 284(Iv) and (Ix)) (IJR): UTIAC 2 Dec 2015

The Lord Chancellor v Detention Action: CA 29 Jul 2015

The claimant challenged the legality of the Fast Track Rules 2014 which govern appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against refusals by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) of asylum applications. Held: The Court upheld the quashing of ‘Fast Track Rules’ which required asylum seekers, detained by the Home … Continue reading The Lord Chancellor v Detention Action: CA 29 Jul 2015

VT (India) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Feb 2016

Renewed application for permission to appeal against a determination of the Upper Tribunal upholding the earlier determination of the First Tier Tribunal which dismissed the appeals of the applicant and his wife and daughter against the decisions of the Secretary of State refusing the applicant’s application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as … Continue reading VT (India) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Feb 2016

Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2): HL 22 Oct 2008

The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had been made (ineffectively) to assist the dispossessed islanders, but an … Continue reading Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2): HL 22 Oct 2008

Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

AA v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa): SC 18 Dec 2013

The appellant child, AA sought entry as the de facto adopted child of his sponsor who had previously been given refugee status. The sponsor had taken parental responsibility of AA under the Islamic Kafala procedure. AA had been admitted under human rights law, but submitted that this was less than should apply under immigration law. … Continue reading AA v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa): SC 18 Dec 2013

Iqbal and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2015

Three applicants had sought an extension of their leave to remain pending the determination of an application to vary the period of leave. In each case, the applications had been faulty, either for non-payment of fees, or failure to provide biometric information. The appellants contended that an application which was ‘invalid’ under the regulations was … Continue reading Iqbal and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2015

Giri, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2015

Appeal against an order dismissing the application of the appellant for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision refusing his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant. Held: The Court applied the Wednesbury criterion in holding that her finding of fact had not been unreasonable. … Continue reading Giri, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2015

AA (Upper Tribunal – Review Power) Uzbekistan: UTIAC 1 Jun 2015

1. By virtue of rules 45 and 46 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 a condition precedent to a review is an application for permission to appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal. 2. Pursuant to s.10 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, rules 45 and 46 make no provision … Continue reading AA (Upper Tribunal – Review Power) Uzbekistan: UTIAC 1 Jun 2015

Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: HL 8 Mar 2006

The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about twenty minutes or more before being allowed to continue. An authorisation had been granted by an … Continue reading Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: HL 8 Mar 2006

Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999

Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999

Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council: SC 18 Mar 2015

Objection had been made that a plan, used to register a right of way before it would disappear if un-registered, was to the wrong scale and that therefore the application was ineffetive. Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The plan was too large a scale, and that could not invalidate the application. The only question is … Continue reading Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council: SC 18 Mar 2015

Ved and Another (Appealable Decisions; Permission Applications; Basnet) (Tanzania): UTIAC 27 Mar 2014

UTIAC (1) A jurisdictional decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, contained in a determination made after the appeal has passed the duty judge ‘screening’ stage, is appealable to the Upper Tribunal: Practice Statement 3.4; Abiyat and others (Rights of appeal) [2011] UKUT 314 (IAC). (2) Where the First-tier Tribunal has refused to … Continue reading Ved and Another (Appealable Decisions; Permission Applications; Basnet) (Tanzania): UTIAC 27 Mar 2014

Ali, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Jan 2015

The claimant complained that the respondent when granting her a time limited leave to remain only, had by making her immigration status incompatible with that of her five children failed to comply with her obligations under the 2009 Act. The defendant had issued a supplementary decision directly addressing section 55, but the claimant said that … Continue reading Ali, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Jan 2015

Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 21 Mar 2007

Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own request refused but that of his family had … Continue reading Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 21 Mar 2007

Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 18 Jul 2012

The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of Appeal upheld his claim saying that the use of a list not … Continue reading Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 18 Jul 2012

T (Entry Clearance – ( S55 BCIA 2009) Jamaica: UTIAC 16 Dec 2011

UTIAC (i) Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 does not apply to children who are outside the United Kingdom.(ii) Where there are reasons to believe that a child’s welfare may be jeopardised by exclusion from the United Kingdom, the considerations of Article 8 ECHR, the ‘exclusion undesirable’ provisions of the Immigration … Continue reading T (Entry Clearance – ( S55 BCIA 2009) Jamaica: UTIAC 16 Dec 2011

Ladd v Marshall: CA 29 Nov 1954

Conditions for new evidence on appeal At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for a retrial. Held: The Court of Appeal refused to … Continue reading Ladd v Marshall: CA 29 Nov 1954

A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009

(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the restrictions in place. Assurances had been given by the home nations that on return they would not … Continue reading A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009

Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2: ECHR 9 Feb 1967

The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French. Held: In establishing a system or regime to comply with a Convention obligation, a State may include within the system elements that are not strictly required … Continue reading Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2: ECHR 9 Feb 1967