Since 2014 the Upper Tribunal has permitted the Home Office double the normal time limit set by the procedure “rules” for responding to an application
The Court of Session has refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg to determine whether the
For members of the Windrush generation or others with a right to be in the UK but no documents to conclusively prove that, the government’s
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2018] EWCA Civ 627 is about how long the Home Office can delay making an immigration
A recent case shows that practitioners should beware the Home Office’s use of consent orders in judicial review claims, write Kim Renfrew and Naga Kandiah
At a time when immigration practitioners are facing a wave of referrals and allegations of misconduct, the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Shah (‘Cart’ judicial review:
Contrary to recent guidance from the Upper Tribunal, issued by former President McCloskey no less, an application to that tribunal for permission to appeal to
The High Court decided today that the Home Office’s policy of detaining and deporting rough sleepers from EU countries is unlawful. The case is R (Gureckis)
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 an oral decision in the case of R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (stay
In the judicial review case of Ayache, R (on the application of) v SSHD (paragraph 353 and s94B relationship) [2017] UKUT 122 (IAC) the Upper
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
At the beginning of this month the Home Office brought into force new guidance on the suspension of removal directions for pending judicial reviews. There
Fees for judicial review applications hare risen yet again from today, Monday 25 July 2016. A new fees order was quietly laid last Friday: The Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal
In a VERY interesting paper, Robert Thomas of the University of Manchester analyses the statistics on judicial review cases since they were transferred from the Administrative
The Court of Appeal has returned to the issue of “totally without merit” certificates in judicial review cases. These certificates can be imposed by a
The latest instalment of President McCloskey’s Massive Open Online Course (“MOOC“) on immigration judicial review is aimed as much at judges as lawyers. In R
Seasoned public law lawyers have felt for some time that it is far harder to succeed in immigration judicial review applications in the Upper Tribunal
In a judgment that may be of interest to legal aid lawyers, the High Court has overturned a rejection by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA)
The Administrative Court last week (22.5.15) handed down judgment in the case of R (on the application of AB) v Secretary of State for the
The issue of when the Upper Tribunal might make a mandatory order requiring the Home Office to act in a specific way was considered in
In the case of R (on the application of SN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (striking out – principles) IJR [2015] UKUT
Normally, where an application for judicial review is made the first stage is for a judge to consider the grounds for judicial review and the acknowledgement
This piece started life as a practice note for welfare benefits cases but the same principles are transferrable to the immigration jurisdiction so we thought
The previously reported case of R (on the application of Bilal Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the home Department (candour/reassessment duties; ETS :alternative remedy)
In Detention Action v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2245, Ouseley J considered a challenge to the lawfulness of the policy
There can be few immigration practitioners who do not presently encounter decisions in relation to applications made on the basis of peoples’ private and family
The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014 came into force on 22 April 2014 with the effect that judicial review proceedings commenced
The Upper Tribunal has in a new judgment [R (on the application of Kumar & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (acknowledgement of
There has now been a fairly substantial series of Court of Appeal judgments on the issue of costs orders in an immigration litigation context. These
Routine, repeated delay in providing Acknowledgements of Service by the Home Office in judicial review cases reached such a pitch in 2013 that the court
An important recent case slipped under my radar last year, mainly because it has not been publicly reported on one of the publicly accessible case
Following on from two recent posts on this subject (Judicial review in the Upper Tribunal; Do not lodge Upper Tribunal judicial reviews by post if urgent),
Following my previous post on Judicial review in the Upper Tribunal someone got in touch with a total horror story. She attempted to lodge a
Since 17 October 2011, some immigration judicial reviews have been heard in the Upper Tribunal. Until now this was confined to asylum fresh claims and
The Court of Appeal has held, overturning the decision of the High Court (see previous blog), that the issue of a certificate under section 15
In R (Ignaoua) [2013] EWHC 2512, the Administrative Court held that under powers conferred by section 15 Justice and Security Act 2013 the Secretary of State
The new Immigration Bill (see Ronan’s previous post “Summary of clauses“) is so packed with nastiness that some really unpleasant parts of it – perhaps
Since 2014 the Upper Tribunal has permitted the Home Office double the normal time limit set by the procedure “rules” for responding to an application for judicial review. Instead of having the 21 days proscribed by the “rules” to respond to a claim, in a case called Kumar [2014] UKUT...
The Court of Session has refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg to determine whether the UK’s notice that it is leaving the EU under Article 50 can be cancelled. Given that the subject matter involved “the most contentious and political...
For members of the Windrush generation or others with a right to be in the UK but no documents to conclusively prove that, the government’s “hostile environment” policy has vastly upped the stakes. But at the heart of many of the problems faced by members of the Windrush generation lies...
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2018] EWCA Civ 627 is about how long the Home Office can delay making an immigration decision before the applicants can successfully claim for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Home Office was appealing a decision from the High...
A recent case shows that practitioners should beware the Home Office’s use of consent orders in judicial review claims, write Kim Renfrew and Naga Kandiah of MTC & Co. Solicitors. Our client SP is an asylum seeker of Sri Lankan origin. SP submitted further evidence to the Home Office, to...
At a time when immigration practitioners are facing a wave of referrals and allegations of misconduct, the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Shah (‘Cart’ judicial review: nature and consequences) [2018] UKUT 51 (IAC) comes as another timely reminder that judges are in no mood to deal with haphazard or slapdash appeals...
Contrary to recent guidance from the Upper Tribunal, issued by former President McCloskey no less, an application to that tribunal for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a costs order made in a judicial review should be subject to a “first appeals test”, not a “second appeals...
The High Court decided today that the Home Office’s policy of detaining and deporting rough sleepers from EU countries is unlawful. The case is R (Gureckis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 3298 (Admin), a judicial review challenge by three EEA nationals to their removal under...
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 the judicial review case of Ayache, R (on the application of) v SSHD (paragraph 353 and s94B relationship) [2017] UKUT 122 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers the lawfulness of a decision to certify a human rights claim under s.94B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. For those not already...
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....
At the beginning of this month the Home Office brought into force new guidance on the suspension of removal directions for pending judicial reviews. There are two crucial changes to the policy: (1) At present, when a judicial review is brought within 3 months of a previous judicial review or...
Fees for judicial review applications hare risen yet again from today, Monday 25 July 2016. A new fees order was quietly laid last Friday: The Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016. The fees going up are for the permission stage and they rise...
In a VERY interesting paper, Robert Thomas of the University of Manchester analyses the statistics on judicial review cases since they were transferred from the Administrative Court to the Upper Tribunal. He finds that the number and proportion of claims certified as “totally without merit” has increased considerably and so...
The Court of Appeal has returned to the issue of “totally without merit” certificates in judicial review cases. These certificates can be imposed by a judge who refuses permission for an application for judicial review on the papers and it prevents the applicant from seeking an oral hearing. There is...
The latest instalment of President McCloskey’s Massive Open Online Course (“MOOC“) on immigration judicial review is aimed as much at judges as lawyers. In R (on the application of SA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (human rights challenges: correct approach) IJR [2015] UKUT 536 (IAC) we are...
Seasoned public law lawyers have felt for some time that it is far harder to succeed in immigration judicial review applications in the Upper Tribunal than it ever was in the High Court. Cases that would have been very likely to succeed will not only now fail but will be...
In a judgment that may be of interest to legal aid lawyers, the High Court has overturned a rejection by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) of a legal aid claim by Duncan Lewis solicitors. The Legal Aid Agency should have considered whether the means assessment conducted by Duncan Lewis, which...
The Administrative Court last week (22.5.15) handed down judgment in the case of R (on the application of AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1490 (Admin), quashing a decision not to recognize AB as a victim of human trafficking for the purposes of the Council...
The issue of when the Upper Tribunal might make a mandatory order requiring the Home Office to act in a specific way was considered in the case of R (on the application of Sultana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (mandatory order – basic principles) IJR [2015] UKUT...
In the case of R (on the application of SN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (striking out – principles) IJR [2015] UKUT 227(IAC) the President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber not only strikes out the applicant’s judicial review claim but also goes on to...
Normally, where an application for judicial review is made the first stage is for a judge to consider the grounds for judicial review and the acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of defence, then decide without holding a hearing whether permission should be granted. Lawyers commonly refer to this decision...
This piece started life as a practice note for welfare benefits cases but the same principles are transferrable to the immigration jurisdiction so we thought it would be helpful to share it here on Free Movement as well. If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in...
The previously reported case of R (on the application of Bilal Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the home Department (candour/reassessment duties; ETS :alternative remedy) IJR [2014] UKUT 439 (IAC) has been re-titled and I think the headnote has been supplemented as well. The case is important on the ongoing...
In Detention Action v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2245, Ouseley J considered a challenge to the lawfulness of the policy and practice applied by the Secretary of State in the operation of the detained fast track and concluded that it ‘carries with it too high...
There can be few immigration practitioners who do not presently encounter decisions in relation to applications made on the basis of peoples’ private and family life which do not carry the right of appeal. In recent years the prevailing tendency has become to segregate decisions, where the applicant is an...
The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014 came into force on 22 April 2014 with the effect that judicial review proceedings commenced on or after that day will not be funded unless: (a) the High Court or Upper Tribunal grants permission; or, (b) permission is neither granted...
The Upper Tribunal has in a new judgment [R (on the application of Kumar & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (acknowledgement of service; Tribunal arrangements) (IJR) [2014] UKUT 104 (IAC)] now set out how it will deal with the vast majority of judicial reviews in which...
There has now been a fairly substantial series of Court of Appeal judgments on the issue of costs orders in an immigration litigation context. These also have wider significance for other public law cases, but immigration law is currently dominating public law litigation, at least by volume, as this widely...
Routine, repeated delay in providing Acknowledgements of Service by the Home Office in judicial review cases reached such a pitch in 2013 that the court held a hearing into the matter (as previously covered on this blog). The Home Office blamed a rise in the number of claims, though from...
An important recent case slipped under my radar last year, mainly because it has not been publicly reported on one of the publicly accessible case law repositories like BAILII. The case is R (on the application of Jasbir Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2873...
Following on from two recent posts on this subject (Judicial review in the Upper Tribunal; Do not lodge Upper Tribunal judicial reviews by post if urgent), there has been another warning about the transfer of judicial reviews into the Upper Tribunal. A claim that includes an element of unlawful detention...
Following my previous post on Judicial review in the Upper Tribunal someone got in touch with a total horror story. She attempted to lodge a judicial review by fax to the Upper Tribunal. There was no initial response but on enquiry by telephone the next day she was invited to...
Since 17 October 2011, some immigration judicial reviews have been heard in the Upper Tribunal. Until now this was confined to asylum fresh claims and disputed age assessments. From 1 November 2013 most new immigration judicial reviews are heard in the Upper Tribunal. There are a few teething difficulties, though....
In R (Ignaoua) [2013] EWHC 2512, the Administrative Court held that under powers conferred by section 15 Justice and Security Act 2013 the Secretary of State can automatically and unilaterally terminate qualifying judicial review proceedings. The appeal hearing concerning this controversial ruling is imminent. The Claimant was a Tunisian national...
The new Immigration Bill (see Ronan’s previous post “Summary of clauses“) is so packed with nastiness that some really unpleasant parts of it – perhaps the whole of it – will make it to the statute book. No mainstream politician with influence will today stand up for the rights of...
