Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

More big cases


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


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

I can’t keep up! If things ever quieten down I’ll do a few more weighty analysis posts but in the meantime these alerter ones must suffice.

Firstly, the Medical Justice challenge to no-notice removals has succeeded: R (on the application of Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1925 (Admin). Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted to the Government, though. This has been trailed on this blog, and the outcome was not unexpected. This is yet another example of the authoritarian and illiberal policies of the previous Government being struck down in the courts as being a basic contravention of the rule of law.

The decision in R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 859 on whether the Upper Tribunal can be judicially reviewed is also out, but I’m afraid I haven’t had time even to glance though it yet. More to follow if/when I have a chance.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Free Movement

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.


3 Responses

  1. Thank you for another concise and informative post.

    Over at http://talk.uk-yankee.com/index.php?topic=64138.0 there’s a claim that stakeholders have been informed by the UKBA of imminent changes to the rules which will (effectively) impose a cap on family path settlement.

    Have you perhaps heard anything about this? I fervently hope that it is scaremongering.

    1. Sounds like scaremongering to me, and I’d very probably be aware if stakeholders had been consulted. I hold a few stakes. I’ve heard nothing.

    2. Indeed! Thank you for that.
      The gentleman concerned is now explaining that spouse and fiancee visas, as well as FLR(M) and ILR, will shortly be subject to an annual cap, with applicants having to wait from year to year until an allotment becomes available. All this from his UKBA sources…
      It’s rather sad to see that this is seen as being plausible.
      Thanks again for your thoughtful and helpful blog.