Trafficking victim wins £260k damages, does not see a penny
10 January 2018
No Comments
How can you win £266,536.14 in damages and walk away without a penny? If those who should pay succeed in divesting themselves of their assets
How can you win £266,536.14 in damages and walk away without a penny? If those who should pay succeed in divesting themselves of their assets
Today’s decision in Anwar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2134 confirms that if the Home Office wishes to impose visa
The Court of Appeal has held in Ahsan v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 2009 that people accused of
In HK, HH, SK and FK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871 the Court of Appeal found that asylum
Further submissions are notoriously difficult to prepare. In PR (Sri Lanka), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017]
In Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal : Albania) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal held that there was no right of appeal against a decision by
The average immigration appeal takes almost 12 months to be resolved, up 13% on the same period last year. This is despite the fact that
The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has announced that the Law Commission will conduct a review of the Immigration Rules. The review came to light in
Nadeem Anjum applied for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa in early 2015. It was refused. The Entry Clearance Officer took the view, following an interview
An immigration lawyer praised for his “good deeds” among the Chinese community has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Vay Sui Ip, a
In one of his final judgments as outgoing President, Mr Justice McCloskey launched a bitter broadside at the conduct of government lawyers in long-running litigation
The facts of R (on the application of MMK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (consent orders – legal effect – enforcement) [2017] UKUT
The Home Office has been in the news for what one judge described as a “prima facie case of contempt of court.” Officials are reported
In Sivapatham (Appearance of Bias: Sri Lanka) [2017] UKUT 293 (IAC) (7 July 2017) frustrated novelist and president of the Upper Tribunal McCloskey J considers
What happens where the Upper Tribunal makes a mistake in a country guidance case? And in what circumstances will the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction
In the case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FtT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine) [2017] UKUT 292 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal, chaired
In the case of Awuah and Others (Wasted Costs Orders – HOPOs – Tribunal Powers) [2017] UKFTT 555 (IAC) the tribunal has decided that a
The nature of applications which attract a right of appeal have been greatly restricted by the Immigration Act 2014. In summary, only refused human rights
The case of KM (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 437 (21 June 2017) raises an interesting, if niche,
In R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 the Supreme Court has struck down “deport first, appeal
Substantial damages of £10,500 have been awarded to a claimant who was unlawfully detained for a period of 70 days. The Home Office had failed
Where the Secretary of State makes an error of law in a decision which is then appealed to the tribunal, does the tribunal have to
In September 2015, the Upper Tribunal decided the case of Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC). The decision states that
“Not often” is the answer. Only if the tribunal acts in an improper way. Incompetence or unlawfulness is not sufficient. In this case, R (on
The judgment in OO (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 338 is one of
The latest tribunal statistics, published in March 2017, show that the average waiting time for appeals to be heard in the immigration tribunal is now
In an oral decision in the case of R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (stay
Two interesting and important legal points emerge from the Upper Tribunal’s determination in SF and others (Guidance, post-2014 Act) [2017] UKUT 120 (IAC). The first
The Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal has fined an immigration solicitor £10,000 for signing off “grossly misleading and inaccurate” statements of truth for judicial review applications. The
The High Court has ruled in the case of R (On the Applications Of TN (Vietnam) & US (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the
The Court of Appeal has in effect endorsed the Home Office practice of issuing “supplementary” decision letters during judicial review litigation to try and make
President McCloskey has blasted the “cavalier and unprofessional” lawyers for both claimants and the Home Office in his latest determination of Shabir Ahmed and others (sanctions
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has revealed that it upheld 75% of complaints made against the Home Office and Border Force last year: Incorrect
The Supreme Court has given judgment in the case of Mirza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 63. The case concerned
The power under the Immigration Act 2016 to certify any human rights appeal, not just deportation appeals, for “remove first, appeal later” treatment came into
Venerable Form FLR(O) is no more and has been withdrawn with effect from today, 1 December 2016. It has been replaced by two new forms:
In a surprising but very welcome development, the Government has reversed the 500% increase in fees for immigration appeals which took effect on 10 October
What do you get for your money when you pay for an oral over a paper hearing in the immigration tribunal? Since the introduction of
The end of immigration appeals from within the UK is nigh: section 63 of the Immigration Act 2016 is being brought into force from 1
As of today, 10 October 2016, it now costs £800 to lodge an appeal against an immigration decision where a proper oral hearing is requested. The
How can you win £266,536.14 in damages and walk away without a penny? If those who should pay succeed in divesting themselves of their assets and if the costs of litigation swallow up all that you do manage to recover. R (Tirkey) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework &...
Today’s decision in Anwar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2134 confirms that if the Home Office wishes to impose visa conditions, it must give people written notice of those conditions. If the Home Office fails to do this, or is unable to produce evidence...
The Court of Appeal has held in Ahsan v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 2009 that people accused of cheating on the TOEIC English language test and threatened with removal from the UK have the right to challenge that decision in this country...
In HK, HH, SK and FK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871 the Court of Appeal found that asylum seekers could be returned to Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation. Removal would not violate the appellants’ Article 3 rights, despite medical reports on their...
Further submissions are notoriously difficult to prepare. In PR (Sri Lanka), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1946 the Court of Appeal has highlighted the need for focussed representations that make specific reference to all evidence and country information being...
In Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal : Albania) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal held that there was no right of appeal against a decision by the Home Office to refuse a residence card to the extended family member of an EEA citizen. The Court of Appeal declared on...
The average immigration appeal takes almost 12 months to be resolved, up 13% on the same period last year. This is despite the fact that less than half as many people now have the chance to challenge Home Office decisions. The number of appeals handled by the immigration tribunal has...
The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has announced that the Law Commission will conduct a review of the Immigration Rules. The review came to light in Rudd’s oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 17 October but Law Commission staff had already begun meetings before then, including with me....
Nadeem Anjum applied for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa in early 2015. It was refused. The Entry Clearance Officer took the view, following an interview with Mr Anjum, that he was not a “genuine entrepreneur”. Since rights of appeal against Points Based System applications were removed, judicial consideration of the...
An immigration lawyer praised for his “good deeds” among the Chinese community has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Vay Sui Ip, a partner at Manchester firm Sandbrook Solicitors, was prosecuted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority over judicial reviews issued as a means of “frustrating deportations“. The tribunal,...
In one of his final judgments as outgoing President, Mr Justice McCloskey launched a bitter broadside at the conduct of government lawyers in long-running litigation over the entry of refugee children. While the criticism of the solicitors at the Government Legal Department and of previous barristers instructed for the Home...
The facts of R (on the application of MMK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (consent orders – legal effect – enforcement) [2017] UKUT 198 (IAC) involved the not uncommon scenario of the Home Office withdrawing its decision in response to an application for judicial review, agreeing a...
The Home Office has been in the news for what one judge described as a “prima facie case of contempt of court.” Officials are reported to have breached multiple orders for the return of asylum seeker Samim Bigzad from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. Ultimately, though, in legal terms it...
In Sivapatham (Appearance of Bias: Sri Lanka) [2017] UKUT 293 (IAC) (7 July 2017) frustrated novelist and president of the Upper Tribunal McCloskey J considers the law surrounding judicial bias in the tribunal. As with previous exponents of the art (see Denning LJ, or Moses LJ), judgments of the President...
What happens where the Upper Tribunal makes a mistake in a country guidance case? And in what circumstances will the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an Upper Tribunal decision that has already been remitted to the First Tier Tribunal? Both of these interesting issues crop...
In the case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FtT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine) [2017] UKUT 292 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal, chaired by Mr Ockelton, has considered the application of rule 17 of the procedure rules. This rule provides that where the Home Office withdraws a decision...
In the case of Awuah and Others (Wasted Costs Orders – HOPOs – Tribunal Powers) [2017] UKFTT 555 (IAC) the tribunal has decided that a wasted costs order — an order that a representative personally pay the costs incurred by the other side because of poor personal conduct — cannot...
The nature of applications which attract a right of appeal have been greatly restricted by the Immigration Act 2014. In summary, only refused human rights applications, or applications for protection, are appealable. All other applications can be challenged by way of Judicial Review or administrative review only. What is the...
The case of KM (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 437 (21 June 2017) raises an interesting, if niche, procedural point. The case is relevant to parties who have had an appeal dismissed by the Upper Tribunal (UT); who wish to challenge the findings...
In R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 the Supreme Court has struck down “deport first, appeal later” certificates for two foreign criminals. The Home Office had made use of new rules in the Immigration Act 2014 which force some appellants to...
Substantial damages of £10,500 have been awarded to a claimant who was unlawfully detained for a period of 70 days. The Home Office had failed to serve the Claimant with notice of a decision on his application to vary his leave to remain in the UK before detaining him, rendering...
In September 2015, the Upper Tribunal decided the case of Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC). The decision states that if an appeal is brought in the First-Tier Tribunal against an EEA decision then the only relevant issues that can be raised during the appeal...
“Not often” is the answer. Only if the tribunal acts in an improper way. Incompetence or unlawfulness is not sufficient. In this case, R (on the application of Gudanaviciene) v Immigration and Asylum First Tier Tribunal [2017] EWCA Civ 352, an EU national was facing deportation. She appealed the decision...
The judgment in OO (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 338 is one of a series of cases challenging the lawfulness of the certification regime under s.94B Nationality Immigration Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). The issue has been considered...
The latest tribunal statistics, published in March 2017, show that the average waiting time for appeals to be heard in the immigration tribunal is now 48 weeks. This is the time between the appeal being lodged and the appeal being promulgated, I understand. The breakdown for different types of appeal...
Two interesting and important legal points emerge from the Upper Tribunal’s determination in SF and others (Guidance, post-2014 Act) [2017] UKUT 120 (IAC). The first is on the issue of when, if at all, a British child might be required by immigration policy to leave the UK and the second...
The Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal has fined an immigration solicitor £10,000 for signing off “grossly misleading and inaccurate” statements of truth for judicial review applications. The solicitor concerned, Achyuth Rajagopal of G Singh Solicitors in London, admitted acting recklessly and in a manner apt to mislead the tribunal and failing adequately...
The High Court has ruled in the case of R (On the Applications Of TN (Vietnam) & US (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2017] EWHC 59 (Admin) that over 10,000 asylum appeals had been decided under procedure rules so unfair that the determinations could...
The Court of Appeal has in effect endorsed the Home Office practice of issuing “supplementary” decision letters during judicial review litigation to try and make good defects in the original refusal. The case is Caroopen & Myrie v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1307....
President McCloskey has blasted the “cavalier and unprofessional” lawyers for both claimants and the Home Office in his latest determination of Shabir Ahmed and others (sanctions for non – compliance) [2016] UKUT 00562 (IAC). The case is that of four men convicted in 2012 of child sex offences in Rotherham...
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has revealed that it upheld 75% of complaints made against the Home Office and Border Force last year: Incorrect decisions, delays and wrong advice are the top reasons for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman upholding the highest proportion of complaints about the Home...
The Supreme Court has given judgment in the case of Mirza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 63. The case concerned the effect of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 as amended and whether it extends leave where an applicant for leave is found later...
The power under the Immigration Act 2016 to certify any human rights appeal, not just deportation appeals, for “remove first, appeal later” treatment came into force today, 1 December 2016. For background see this earlier blog post: New commencement order introduces out of country human rights appeals and more. Guidance...
Venerable Form FLR(O) is no more and has been withdrawn with effect from today, 1 December 2016. It has been replaced by two new forms: 1. FLR(HRO) broadly for applications outside the Immigration Rules based on human rights: discretionary leave (DL) if you have previously been granted DL but have...
In a surprising but very welcome development, the Government has reversed the 500% increase in fees for immigration appeals which took effect on 10 October 2016. Fees will instead be charged at the old rates and those who have paid the higher fees in the last few weeks will have...
What do you get for your money when you pay for an oral over a paper hearing in the immigration tribunal? Since the introduction of much higher appeal fees in October 2016, the price difference is now between £490 for an “on the papers” decision and £80o for a proper...
The end of immigration appeals from within the UK is nigh: section 63 of the Immigration Act 2016 is being brought into force from 1 December 2016 by the Immigration Act 2016 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1037SI 2016/1037). The change introduces a power for the...
As of today, 10 October 2016, it now costs £800 to lodge an appeal against an immigration decision where a proper oral hearing is requested. The change was announced on 15 September 2016 and the necessary legal change, the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2016, was...
