- Court of Appeal to Home Office: go away
- President Lane urges caution in making awards of costs against Home Office
- Home Office loses out on costs over “clear and inexcusable” litigation delay
- The Upper Tribunal’s costs appeal guidance has been overruled
- Home Office penalised for conduct of litigation in unlawful detention case
High Court’s denunciation of immigration lawyers will have a chilling effect
A lawyer is not merely a conduit through which their client’s grievances can be aired in court. The grievance must be formulated into a coherent and stateable case and presented in a professional, honest, and courteous manner. The Solicitors Regulat ...
27th April 2018Tribunal finally asks: what is a human rights appeal anyway?
Nearly three years after the main appeal provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 commenced, the Upper Tribunal has turned its attention to the question lying at the heart of almost all appeals lodged since then: what is a human rights appeal anywa... A ...
16th April 2018Above-inflation increase in immigration and nationality fees for 2018/19
New fees for immigration and nationality applications come into effect on 6 April 2018. They represent an increase on the charges for 2017/18, although the rise is not so swingeing as in previous years. The eye-watering price of a dependent relat... ...
4th April 2018Guest post: are Home Office consent orders worth it?
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 subm.. ...
23rd March 2018President Lane takes fresh aim at flimsy judicial review grounds
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 t... ...
6th March 2018Lawyers criticised for misleading court in bid to prevent high-profile removal
The recent decision in R (SB (Afghanistan)) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 215 concerned the removal of an Afghan asylum seeker last year. As the judgment records, the case generated a significant amount of media attention amid reports that it had taken ... ...
26th February 2018