Category: Immigration

LM (Article 8 – Married Appellant – Proportionality) Jamaica: UTIAC 22 Oct 2010

UTIAC It was not a violation of Article 8 ECHR to remove the appellant to Jamaica given that she married her BOT citizen husband from Montserrat when she was here without leave, substantially failed to comply with the Immigration Rules, had no UK born children and strong family connections in Jamaica, including three children one still a minor. Despite the fact that the settled husband was in receipt of invalidity benefit here, it was reasonable to expect him to follow the appellant to Jamaica.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 379 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.425494

W (China) and X (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Nov 2006

The claimants had entered England unlawfully, fleeing from China, then moved to Ireland and then back to England with their new born child, and claimed asylum. The court considered how the position of their child affected the parents.
Held: To fulfil the requirements of Directive 90/364 all of Q, W and X had to demonstrate (i) the possession of sickness insurance; and (ii) sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom. No sufficient health insurance was proved by the applicants, and NHS care did not count for this purpose. That was fatal to their claim. Neither Directive 90/364 nor the Immigration Rules provide in terms for the situation before the court. They provide for derivative rights, on specified conditions, for spouses and dependent relatives of EU nationals; but since the applicants were in neither of these classes in relation to their daughter, neither source of law applied to them.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ, Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1494, Times 13-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 1514

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Zhu, Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 19-Oct-2004
ECJ (Free Movement of Persons) Right of residence – Child with the nationality of one Member State but residing in another Member State – Parents nationals of a non-member country – Mother’s right to reside in . .
Cited – Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 11-Jul-2002
The applicant had come to England on a six month visitor’s visa. She then married an English national, but her visa was not extended.
Held: The husband had business interests and activities throughout the community. The deportation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.245947

P and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 2004

In each case the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had reversed the decision of the adjudicator on appeal.
Held: The IAT had in effect reheard and decided matters of fact afresh. This departed from the approach in Subesh, and was incorrect. The relation between the IAT and the adjudicator was akin to that between the Court of Appeal and a court of first instance.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Clarke LJ, Rix LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1640, Times 14-Dec-2004, [2005] Imm AR 84

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Subesh, Suthan, Nagulananthan and Vanniyasingam v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Mar-2004
The Immigration Appeal Tribunal should not interfere with an adjudicator’s decision unless it concludes that it is not merely able but is required to adopt a different view.
Laws LJ discussed the caution required of an appellate court: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.220109

RB (Algeria, Berbers) Algeira: IAT 10 Aug 2004

The appellant is a citizen of Algeria who has been given permission to appeal the Determination of an Adjudicator, Mr M Ghani, dismissing on both Refugee Convention and Human Rights Grounds his appeal against the respondent’s decision to give directions for his removal from the United Kingdom following the refusal of asylum.

Judges:

P R Moulden (Vice President)

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00220

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.200414

M, Regina (on the Application Of) v Islington and Another: Admn 5 Jun 2003

What powers do local authorities now have to provide accommodation for an adult who, not being an asylum-seeker, is unlawfully present in the United Kingdom and who is caring for a child?

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1388 (Admin), [2003] HLR 73, [2003] 2 FLR 903, [2003] Fam Law 729, [2004] ACD 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Housing, Children

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.185377

Kola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 21 May 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Parker Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Appeal from – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.197052

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 of 26 June 2013 – ‘Dublin III’ or ‘the Regulation’). In each case, the individual claimed damages for false imprisonment or under EU law in respect of his detention.
Held: (Sales LJ dissenting) The appeals by claimants succeeded, and that of the HS was rejected. The touchstone applied by the CJEU in Al Chodor for assessing compliance with articles 28(2) and 2(n) of the Dublin III Regulation was whether the provisions relied upon for detention had the requisite legal basis and the safeguards of clarity, predictability, accessibility and protection against arbitrariness within a framework of certain predetermined limits. The majority also held that it was clear that neither the Hardial Singh principles nor the Secretary of State’s published policy in Chapter 55 of the EIG satisfied these requirements. It followed that the detention of all of the respondents was in breach of article 28(2).
Each of the respondents had established all of the necessary ingredients of the common law cause of action for wrongful imprisonment. They had all been detained and that detention was unlawful because it was effected pursuant to the policy in Chapter 55 of the EIG, and that was itself unlawful in so far as it failed to give effect to articles 28(2) and 2(n) of the Regulation. The respondents were therefore entitled to damages for false imprisonment.
Dissenting, Sales LJ held that a policy statement such as that contained in Chapter 55 of the EIG was in principle capable of satisfying the requirements of articles 28(2) and 2(n) of the Dublin III Regulation, and that here it did satisfy those requirements. However, conscious that he was in the minority on this issue, he went on to consider whether, on the footing that he was wrong, the respondents were entitled to damages. He concluded that they were not. In his view, the claim turned on the alleged failure by the United Kingdom to adopt a particular form of law when implementing articles 28(2) and 2(n). In these circumstances the proper approach in considering whether the Secretary of State was liable for damages was to ask whether the relevant criteria for an award of damages in respect of a breach of European law had been satisfied and, in particular, whether the breach was sufficiently serious within the meaning of the decision of the CJEU in Factortame, that is to say whether the member state had manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion. Here, any breach of articles 28(2) and 2(n) did not satisfy that ‘sufficiently serious’ test.
He also addressed the separate claims by the first and second respondents for false imprisonment based upon a breach of the Hardial Singh principles. In his view there was nothing in them, and in this regard he agreed with the decision of Garnham J: the first and second respondents were detained for proper reasons; they were assessed as posing a risk of absconding and that assessment was rational and justified; and throughout the period of their detention, there remained a real prospect that they would be removed eventually.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR and Sales, Peter Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2122, [2018] WLR(D) 632, [2019] INLR 179, [2019] 2 WLR 814, [2019] QB 708, [2019] 1 CMLR 21

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Admn – SS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another Admn 26-May-2017
The claimant sought asylum, claiming to be a child.
Held: He was not a child when detained. However, he had been detained to secure his transfer to the responsible member state under the Dublin III scheme; that it had to be established that he . .
Applied – Policie CR, Krajske reditelstvi policie Usteckeho kraje, odbor cizinecke policie v Al Chodor and Others ECJ 15-Mar-2017
Police detention of Immigrants to follow rules
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 . .

Cited by:

At CA (Appeal from) – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.625415

HK (Iraq) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 23 Nov 2017

The claimants had applied for asylum, but had arrived from other EU countries. Their claims being dismissed, they were detained pending removal. They said that on return to Bulgaria, they would face harsh treatment.

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1871

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – SS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another Admn 26-May-2017
The claimant sought asylum, claiming to be a child.
Held: He was not a child when detained. However, he had been detained to secure his transfer to the responsible member state under the Dublin III scheme; that it had to be established that he . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European, Human Rights

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.599608

Abdulkadir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 28 Jun 2016

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1504 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.566262

SS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 26 May 2017

The claimant sought asylum, claiming to be a child.
Held: He was not a child when detained. However, he had been detained to secure his transfer to the responsible member state under the Dublin III scheme; that it had to be established that he posed a significant risk of absconding; and that his detention was unlawful because, even if he posed a significant risk of absconding, his detention was in conflict with articles 28(2) and 2(n).

Judges:

John Howell QC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1295 (Admin), [2017] 1 WLR 3641, [2017] WLR(D) 380

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At Admn – 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 . .
At Admn – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Appeal from – HK (Iraq) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Nov-2017
The claimants had applied for asylum, but had arrived from other EU countries. Their claims being dismissed, they were detained pending removal. They said that on return to Bulgaria, they would face harsh treatment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.588863

Khaled v SS Home Department: Admn 18 Apr 2016

The Court was asked as to the making of orders for the return of asylum seekers to Bulgaria, being their first country of arrival within the EU. The claimants challenged both the lawfulness of their removal and the lawfulness of their detention.
Held: Two of the claims were allowed, but the third failed.

Judges:

Garnham J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 857 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Khaled, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (No 2) Admn 15-Jun-2016
The claimant failed asylum seekers sought damages alleging that their detention pending removal had been unlawful. . .
At Admin (1) – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.562133

Manchester College of Accountancy and Management, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 1 Mar 2013

The college appealed against the revocation of its Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence.
Held: The challenge failed: ‘the Defendant was entitled on the evidence to conclude that the Claimant was not properly monitoring its students’ attendance. I reject the Claimant’s contention that the Defendant’s determination of this issue is unlawful by reason of any unfairness in the procedure adopted by the Defendant to investigate this complaint. ‘

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 409 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – The London Reading College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 18-Oct-2010
The claimant challenged the removal of its name from the ‘sponsor register’ for foreign students wanting to study here.
Held: Neil Garnham QC J said: ‘It has to be remembered that the primary duty about the response to breaches of a college’s . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Apr-2011
The respondent had suspended and revoked the licence of the claimant company to enrol non-EEA students on its courses. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.471300

S v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 16 Jul 2012

Application for judicial review of detention pursuant to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, pending his removal to Togo, following notice of a deportation order.

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1939 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.463288

RU (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 8 Jun 2011

The applicant who had had indefinite leave to remain had been convicted of a very serious offence of violence. After serving his 15 year sentence the respondent said that he was liable to deportation.

Judges:

Longmore, Aikens, Elias LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 651

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440445

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 him with the necessary points. His occupation was not among those listed.
Held: His appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Jackson, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440461

FA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 25 May 2011

Having failed in his asylum claim, FA claimed the protection of European law, saying that a right of appeal should be available to him against the refusal of his application for humanitarian relief under Eurpean law.
Held: The matter raised issues requiring an answer from the ECJ, and the matter was referred accordingly.

Judges:

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson

Citations:

[2011] UKSC 22, UKSC 2010/0142

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Council Directive 2004/83/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440439

Patel (Tier 4 – No ’60-Day Extension’) India: UTIAC 13 Apr 2011

UTIAC (1) Where a sponsor’s Tier 4 licence is withdrawn, the UKBA Policy Guidance as at November 2009 (page 52) operates to restrict the remaining leave granted to 60 days where a student has more than six months’ of the original leave remaining. It has no effect on periods of less than six months.
(2) The policy does not operate to extend leave and in particular, it does not provide a 60 day extension of leave to remain in a case where that leave to remain has already expired.
(3) The 60 day restriction, if applicable, rums from the time when the Secretary of State notifies the student of the imposition of the restriction following the withdrawal of the licence.

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J, Gleeson SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 187 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440092

AD (Reporting Criteria – Unreported Cases) Somalia: UTIAC 23 May 2011

UTIAC (1) The decision in AM (Somalia) [2011] UKUT 54 (IAC) decided that the evidence failed to establish the generalised or indiscriminate violence was at such a high level along the route from Mogadishu to Afgoye (which travels across the K4 junction) that an appellant would be a real risk. Although the Tribunal in the unreported case of Ahmed Farah Mohamed reached a different conclusion, it did not fully address the findings in relation to this issue in the earlier country guidance case of AM and AM [2008].
(2) Given the criteria for reporting cases and the process of preparing decisions for reporting, it is likely to be rare that an unreported decision will contain sufficient material within it to offer significant assistance as guidance to decision-makers, practitioners or other judges in other cases.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 189 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440093

Slough Borough Council v M, Regina (on the Application Of): CA 25 May 2006

The claimant was subject to immigration control. He sought assistance under the 1948 Act on the basis that he suffered HIV. The authority appealed an order requiring them to provide assistance on the basis that he need for medication brought him within the section.
Held: The authority’s appeal was dismissed. Care and attention could extend to the provision of shelter, warmth, food and other basic necessities. If the need was made ‘more acute’ by some other circumstance than mere lack of accommodation and funds, it did not arise ‘solely’ from destitution and the local authority was responsible.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 655, (2006) 9 CCL Rep 438, [2007] LGR 225, [2007] BLGR 225

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council Admn 27-Apr-2004
The claimant, a Zimbabwean, was subject to immigration control. He was HIV positive, and sought assistance from the authority under the 1948 Act. The authority replied that his needs did not reach such a level as to require assistance under the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, Local Government

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.242185

London Borough of Lambeth v Grant: CA 16 Dec 2004

The applicant was an overstaying immigrant, and was to be returned to Jamaica. She had three children, the youngest of whom had been born in England. The council sought to pay the fares to return to Jamaica for the whole family rather than to have to pay the costs of housing for them.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It was imoportant to remember that the applicant and her family were here illegally, and had no right to support. The applicant could not create such a right by making an application to remain. The power to promote the family’s well being included the power to provide the fares.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Chadwick

Citations:

Times 05-Jan-2005, [2004] EWCA Civ 1711, [2005] 1 WLR 1781

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Local Government Act 2000 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – London Borough of Lambeth v Grant QBD 17-Jun-2004
Where a parent was to be returned to her country of origin, the local authority had no power to provide travelling expenses to the children to go with her. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.220570

Khaled, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (No 2): Admn 15 Jun 2016

The claimant failed asylum seekers sought damages alleging that their detention pending removal had been unlawful.

Judges:

Garnham J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1394 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 328, [2016] 3 CMLR 31, [2016] 1 WLR 4243

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Khaled v SS Home Department Admn 18-Apr-2016
The Court was asked as to the making of orders for the return of asylum seekers to Bulgaria, being their first country of arrival within the EU. The claimants challenged both the lawfulness of their removal and the lawfulness of their detention.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.565719

SP (Allowed Appeal Directions) South Africa: UTIAC 17 Mar 2011

Section 87(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 permits the Tribunal to give a direction for the purpose of giving effect to its decision and is a broader power than paragraph 21 (5) of Schedule 4 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 where the direction must be ‘necessary’
In an entry clearance case directions should only be given requiring the issue of entry clearance where the judge is satisfied that the appellant will be able to meet all the requirements of the relevant rule in the foreseeable future.

Judges:

Lady Dorrian, Allen SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 188 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 87(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.440091

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 the transitional provisions should apply.
Held: The claim failed. His proposition, that it was unlawful for the Secretary of State to enforce a requirement that applicants for leave to remain for work purposes have certain skill levels, without every job and skill being listed in detail in the Immigration Rules themselves (requiring a Parliamentary process to change the list) – was unrealistic and certainly not a legal requirement. It was not the intention of Parliament that the skills list should be an intrinsic part of the Rules or subject to specific Parliamentary legislative approval.

Judges:

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2666 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(2), Immigration Rules HC395

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .
Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Apr-2011
The respondent had suspended and revoked the licence of the claimant company to enrol non-EEA students on its courses. . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
At first instance – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.425569

KG (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 21 May 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 664

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pedro v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Dec-2009
The claimant, an EU national, came to the UK to join her son. He had worked but became dependent on benefits. She sought payment of the State Pension.
Held: A refusal to pay the pension would dissuade workers from moving around within the EU, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.269972

AA, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 10 Jul 2013

The issue on this appeal is the effect of section 55 on the legality of the appellant’s detention under paragraph 16 over a period of 13 days. At the time of the detention the Secretary of State acted in the mistaken but reasonable belief that he was aged over 18. It is now an agreed fact that he was born on 1 February 1993 and so was aged 17. If his true age had been known he would not have been detained, because his detention would have been contrary to the Secretary of State’s policy in relation to minors. The appellant’s case was that the fact of his age made his detention unlawful on the proper construction of section 55, and that the Secretary of State’s reasonable belief that he was over 18 was no defence to his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. The respondent acting under a genuine and reasonable if mistaken belief was not liable. To safeguard children the Secretary of State had to establish proper systems for arriving at a reliable assessment of a person’s age. That was not easy. She was vicariously responsible for the actions of her officers, but had issued detailed and appropriate guidance the evidence was that that guidance had been followed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 49, [2014] INLR 51, [2013] 1 WLR 2224, [2013] HRLR 34, [2013] 3 FCR 515, [2013] WLR(D) 272, [2013] 4 All ER 140, UKSC 2013/0032

Links:

Bailii, Balii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD, Gazette

Statutes:

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55, Immigration Act 1971 S2, 16(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – AA, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Oct-2012
The applicant had been detained for immigration purposes, but it then transpired that, though unaccompanied on arrival, he was under 18, and should not have been detained. He was released after 13 days, but now sought judicial review. . .
Cited – Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council Admn 14-Jul-2003
The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he . .
At first instance – A, Regina (on The Application of) v Cardiff County Council and Others Admn 7-Mar-2011
The claimant pursued an application for permission to apply for judicial review against the Secretary of State. He had entered unlawfully, and been held in immigration detention, but said that as a child at the time, he should not have bee detained. . .
Cited – AAM (A Child) v Secretary of State for The Home Department QBD 27-Sep-2012
The claimant sought damages, alleging false imprisonment and breach of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The defendant conceded that the detention had been unlawful because officers had wrongly applied a presumption that an . .
Cited – Liversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.512251

Eat, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Newham: Admn 28 Feb 2013

Whether the Defendant local authority is obliged to provide support, including accommodation, to the Claimant and her mother pursuant to section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989, pending determination of the mother’s appeal against the refusal by the United Kingdom Border Agency acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of her application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 344 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Immigration, Housing

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.471299

Subesh, Suthan, Nagulananthan and Vanniyasingam v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Mar 2004

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal should not interfere with an adjudicator’s decision unless it concludes that it is not merely able but is required to adopt a different view.
Laws LJ discussed the caution required of an appellate court: ‘The answer is, we think, ultimately to be found in the reason why (as we have put it) the appeal process is not merely a re-run second time around of the first instance trial. It is because of the law’s acknowledgement of an important public interest, namely that of finality in litigation. The would-be appellant does not approach the appeal court as if there had been no first decision, as if, so to speak, he and his opponent were to meet on virgin territory. The first instance decision is taken to be correct until the contrary is shown. As Lord Davey put it in Montgomerie (in the passage we have cited), ‘[i]n every case the appellant assumes the burden of shewing that the judgment appealed from is wrong’ (our emphasis). The burden so assumed is not the burden of proof normally carried by a claimant in first instance proceedings where there are factual disputes. An appellant, if he is to succeed, must persuade the appeal court or tribunal not merely that a different view of the facts from that taken below is reasonable and possible, but that there are objective grounds upon which the court ought to conclude that a different view is the right one. The divide between these positions is not caught by the supposed difference between a perceived error and a disagreement. In either case the appeal court disagrees with the court below, and, indeed, may express itself in such terms. The true distinction is between the case where the appeal court might prefer a different view (perhaps on marginal grounds) and one where it concludes that the process of reasoning, and the application of the relevant law, require it to adopt a different view. The burden which an appellant assumes is to show that the case falls within this latter category.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 56, [2004] Imm AR 112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Jul-2004
The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. The claimant appealed that finding.
Held: The jurisdiction of the IAT was now restricted to issues of law. The respondents submissions to the . .
Cited – P and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Dec-2004
In each case the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had reversed the decision of the adjudicator on appeal.
Held: The IAT had in effect reheard and decided matters of fact afresh. This departed from the approach in Subesh, and was incorrect. The . .
Cited – Charania v Harbour Estates Ltd CA 27-Oct-2009
The defendant appealed against the award of the estate agent’s fees, acting under a sole agency agreement. The agreement had been terminated. A buyer who had seen the property first under the agency later returned and negotiated a purchase.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.194577

Nhengu v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 3 Mar 2004

The applicant challenged refusal of his application for asylum, claiming a well founded fear that if returned to Zimbabwe, he would be persecuted.
Held: Internal relocation was possible. Past persecution was not necessarily a guide to future behaviour.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 298, Gazette 01-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.194687

Ahmed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 May 2013

The claimant a national of Pakistan, challenged the defendant’s processing of his asylum claim through the Detained Fast Track Procedure, and his detention during that period.

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1536 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.511222

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), [2013] WLR(D) 169

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.503471

Strbac and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Jul 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 848, [2005] Imm AR 504

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.228415

Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah: HL 16 Dec 1982

The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the fifth had entered with his parents for settlement and had indefinite leave to remain. They challenged the refusal to allow them grants for their education.
Held: The House construed the expression ‘ordinarily resident’ in the 1962 and 1980 Acts. Long-standing authority on the meaning of the expression was referred to. The natural and ordinary meaning of ordinary residence had been settled by two tax cases. At least for educational purposes, ‘ordinary residence’ did not include a person whose residence in a particular place or country was unlawful.
Lord Scarman said: ‘Unless, therefore, it can be shown that the statutory framework or the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning, I unhesitatingly subscribe to the view that ‘ordinarily resident’ refers to a man’s abode in a particular place or country which he has adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whether of short or of long duration.’
This was ‘ultimately a question of fact, depending more upon the evidence of matters susceptible of objective proof than upon evidence as to state of mind’ ‘There are two, and no more than two, respects in which the mind of the ‘propositus’ is important in determining ordinary residence. The residence must be voluntarily adopted. Enforced presence by reason of kidnapping or imprisonment, or a Robinson Crusoe existence on a desert island with no opportunity of escape, may be so overwhelming a factor as to negative the will to be where one is’. And ‘local education authorities, when considering an application for a mandatory award, must ask themselves the question: has the applicant shown that he has habitually and normally resided in the United Kingdom from choice and for a settled purpose throughout the prescribed period, apart from temporary or occasional absences?’ There is an overlap between the meaning of ‘ordinary’ and ‘habitual’ residence and one is sometimes defined in terms of the other: ‘I agree with Lord Denning, M.R. that in their natural and ordinary meaning, the words [ordinarily resident] mean ‘that the person must be habitually and normally resident here, apart from temporary or occasional absences of long or short duration.’ The significance of the adverb ‘habitually’ is that it recalls two necessary features mentioned by Viscount Sumner in Lysaght’s case, namely residence adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes.’ and ‘The ordinary and natural meaning of the words supplies [a simple test]. For if there be proved a regular, habitual mode of life in a particular place, the continuity of which has persisted despite temporary absences, ordinary residence is established provided only it is adopted voluntarily and for a settled purpose.’ Purposive interpretation is only available if a judges ‘can find in the statute read as a whole or in material to which they are permitted by law to refer as aids to interpretation an expression of Parliament’s purpose or policy.’
The court allowed one exception: ‘If a man’s presence in a particular place or country is unlawful, eg in breach of the immigration laws, he cannot rely on his unlawful residence as constituting ordinary residence (even though in a tax case the Crown may be able to do so): In re Abdul Manan [1971] 1 WLR 859 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Margueritte [1982] 3 WLR 753, CA. There is, indeed, express provision to this effect in the Act of 1971, section 33(2). But even without this guidance I would conclude that it was wrong in principle that a man could rely on his own unlawful act to secure an advantage which could have been obtained if he had acted lawfully.’ ‘Unless, therefore, it can be shown that the statutory framework or the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning, I unhesitatingly subscribe to the view that ‘ordinarily resident’ refers to a man’s abode in a particular place or country which he has adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whether of short or of long duration.’
Lord Scarman also said: ‘If a local education authority gets the law right, or, as the lawyers would put it, directs itself correctly in law, the question of fact – ie has the student established the prescribed residence? – is for the authority, not the court, to decide. The merits of the application are for the local education authority subject only to judicial review to ensure that the authority has proceeded according to the law.’

Judges:

Lord Scarman

Citations:

[1983] 2 AC 309, [1983] 1 All ER 226, [1983] 2 WLR 16, [1982] UKHL 14, (1982) 81 LGR 305

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1962, Education Act 1980, Local Education Authority Award Regulations 1979 (SI 1979/889) R13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Lysaght HL 1928
The taxpayer, who was living in Ireland would come regularly to England for a total of less than three months a year, and would spend a week or so in a hotel for the purpose of board meetings. The House considered the meaning of the requirement of . .
Cited – Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1928
Until 1919 Mr. Levene had been both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. Then, for five years he spent about five months (mainly in the summer) each year, staying in hotels in the UK and receiving medical attention or pursuing religious and . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Lysaght HL 1928
The taxpayer, who was living in Ireland would come regularly to England for a total of less than three months a year, and would spend a week or so in a hotel for the purpose of board meetings. The House considered the meaning of the requirement of . .
Cited – In re Abdul Manan CA 1971
The applicant was a Pakistani seaman who had deserted from his ship and his presence in the UK was unlawful under the 1962 Act. He nevertheless claimed to be entitled to enter and remain as a person who had been ordinarily resident here for two . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Margueritte CA 1982
The applicant first arrived from Mauritius in 1972, and was given limited leave to enter for a few months. He over-stayed until June 1974 when he paid a short visit to France. On return he was given one month’s leave to enter, but again overstayed. . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals) HL 5-Feb-2004
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having . .
Cited – Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1-Nov-2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under . .
Cited – Mark v Mark CA 19-Feb-2004
The husband sought to stay divorce proceedings saying that his wife was an illegal overstayer, and could not therefore establish residence either as habitual or as domicile of choice.
Held: Jurisdiction existed. The law since Shah had . .
Cited – Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 3-Nov-1999
Mrs. Nessa arrived at Heathrow aged 55 having lived all her life in Bangladesh. Her husband, Mr. Mobarak Ali, had lived in the United Kingdom from 1962 until he died in 1975 and when she arrived here, Mrs. Nessa had a right of abode. She hoped to . .
Applied – Kapur v Kapur FD 1984
The husband had petitioned for divorce. He came to England only in August 1981, and had only limited leave to stay. The court considered whether the court had jurisdiction.
Held: There was no significant difference for this purpose between . .
Cited – Mark v Mark HL 30-Jun-2005
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .
Cited – YA, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Health CA 30-Mar-2009
The applicant was a failed asylum seeker who sought judicial review of a decision of an NHS Trust not to provide him with free care. The court was asked for guidance as to whether a health trust had a discretion to provide free health care to a . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – Davies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2011
The Revenue had published a booklet, IR20, setting out their approach to the interpretation of the phrases ‘residence’ and ‘ordinary residence’. The taxpayer said that this was a more generous definition than the statutory one, and that having acted . .
Considered – Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Chugtai 1995
The court considered the natural and ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’.
Held: It was a question of fact for each case. Collins J noted the example given in argument of a person who had a contract for a definite period of . .
Applied – Regina v Waltham Forest, Ex parte Vale 11-Feb-1985
The court had to decide what was the ordinary reference under the 1948 of an adult without capacity. V had been in residential care in Ireland for over 20 years, but having left there had been with her mother for two weeks. The parties argued the . .
Cited – Cornwall Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Somerset County Council SC 8-Jul-2015
PH had severe physical and learning disabilities and was without speech, lacking capacity to decide for himself where to live. Since the age of four he received accommodation and support at public expense. Until his majority in December 2004, he was . .
Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Immigration

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.200334

Zenovics, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 7 Mar 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 273

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Zenovics v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 14-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones and others v Ceredigion County Council CA 28-Jul-2005
The parties had challenged the respondent’s decision not to provide free transport to school. The judge granted certificates allowing leave to apply direct to the House of Lords on two issues, and to the Court of Appeal on one other. The House later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.168079

RG v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Apr 2006

The applicant sought permission to appeal against a refusal of a judicial review. The application was being heard seven months later.
Held: Permission was refused. Delay was inimical to justice. The solicitors, the Legal Services Commission and the transcibers had to overhaul their administrative procedures to ensure that communicatins were properly logged, and email being not 100% reliable should not be relied upon exclusively. Solicitors should have systems in place to chase matters when they did not receive a reply within a few days.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 396, Times 12-May-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.241971