Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Supreme Court allows 3rd party support
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
[UPDATE: see later post] News just in, more to follow tomorrow, if there’s anything to say. AM (Somalia) was heard and allowed today. I’m currently at the Hammersmith and Fulham Community Law Centre AGM so not much chance to deal with this properly right now. Word is that the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal and tribunal and third party support is once again allowed under the immigration rules for spouses and dependent relatives. The written judgment will probably not be available for several weeks or months, unfortunately.
In short, this means that support from benevolent uncles is once more permitted as a contribution to maintenance under the immigration rules. Charles Dickens would approve, I feel.
UPDATE 12/11/09: I had a chat with one of the juniors in the case. The panel was of five judges. The appellant’s leaders were Manjit Gill QC, Michael Fordham QC (I’ve noticed he doesn’t do a lot of Treasury work these days) and David Panick QC, with Monica Carss-Frisk QC for the Home Office. The hearing lasted two and a half days. At the end the panel announced that the appeal was allowed and entry clearance should be granted. Intriguingly they also indicated that they were going to hold that third party support was permissible for the three categories under the rules. It isn’t clear which three, but must include spouses and dependent relatives. Children cases may also be included in the ruling.