Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Damages denied for deprivation of permission to work
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
Mr Justice Collins has rejected a claim for damages by an asylum seeker who was kept waiting for over a year for a decision on his claim and whose application for permission to work was not decided by the Home Office. The case is R (on the application of Negassi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 386 (Admin) and it follows on from the earlier Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of ZO (Somalia) ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 36. It seems likely that an appeal will be attempted.
The ratio seems to come at paragraph 25:
In my view, this is a borderline case. I recognise the force of Mr Wilson’s submissions based on the judgment of the Supreme Court. But the hurdle to be overcome by a claimant who seeks damages is a high one. This was an error of construction, not a deliberate intentional breach of the obligations imposed by the Reception Directive. While such an error is capable of being sufficiently serious to found a claim for damages, a court should be slow to support such a claim. The test set out in the authorities and in particular in the BT case is deliberately put at a high level. In all the circumstances, I am persuaded that Mr Eicke’s submissions prevail and that, despite the Supreme Court’s judgment, the breach was not manifestly and gravely unlawful.
A second reason is given in the alternative which seems a little more suspect: that although there were no real restrictions on the type of work that might be undertaken if permission had been granted at that time, if the Home Office had known what the law really was they would have introduced massive restrictions (which indeed they subsequently have) and therefore the claimant would probably not have been given permission to work in any event. That is all a tad hypothetical, some might think.
There is no consideration of the lawfulness of the above mentioned massive restrictions on employment for asylum seeker kept waiting over a year, so that battle will need to be fought another day.
Interested in refugee law? You might like Colin's book, imaginatively called "Refugee Law" and published by Bristol University Press.
Communicating important legal concepts in an approachable way, this is an essential guide for students, lawyers and non-specialists alike.