Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
English courts can’t hear immigration appeals from Scotland
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
Immigration law is the same across the United Kingdom, but the legal systems are not. Normally that doesn’t matter. Sometimes, as in the case of Khurshid v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1515, it does.
Mr Khursid is involved in legal proceedings to secure his right to remain in the UK. He lives in Scotland, but uses English solicitors. There have long been problems with English-qualified lawyers being unable to argue cases in Scotland, even in the UK-wide immigration tribunal. The tribunal stage doesn’t seem to have been an issue for Mr Khursid, but when he sought to appeal his case further to the Court of Session, officials told his solicitors:
you must have a right of audience should you wish to appeal to the Court of Session. As you do not you must therefore instruct Scottish solicitors to lodge on your behalf.
Mr Khursid’s solicitors went instead to the Court of Appeal in their home jurisdiction of England and Wales, asking it to hear the case.
Lord Justice Dingemans refused, pointing out that this isn’t the first time the issue has come up. The case of KP (Pakistan)  EWCA Civ 556 established that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear an immigration appeal earmarked for the Court of Session. Dingemans LJ also rejected a bid to use Cart judicial review powers to redirect the case to England: Mr Khursid’s “trust and confidence in his current solicitors” did not justify such a move, only possible in “exceptional circumstances”.