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 a highly technical provision which for the purposes of immigration control introduces into the legislative scheme a necessary fiction as to what constitutes entry to the UK, but talks about entry, not arrival. It could not therefore be used as the definition to be applied under the Regulations. The provision was ambiguous. A strict interpretation would often result in unfairness, as in this case. Read properly the claims should have been allowed.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
 UKHL 54
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Kola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-May-2004
Appeal from – Kola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-May-2004
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
Cited – Shire v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 13-Oct-2003
The claimant, a Somali woman, had arrived at Gatwick Airport from Yemen at 10.30 pm on 29 August 1999 and not claimed asylum until 31 August (the intervening day being a bank holiday). Her reason for not claiming at Gatwick was that she was . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
Cited – Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261603