All Articles: Judicial review

Tribunal belatedly ends Home Office exemption from judicial review time “rules”

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” ...

25th June 2018 By

When law and politics collide: Brexit in the Court of Session

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 inv ...

11th June 2018 By

An overlooked weapon in Windrush cases: judicial review

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 ...

30th May 2018 By

No legitimate expectation arises from a chat with the Business Helpdesk

The responsibility to take the utmost care to ensure that the Points Based System, Immigration Rules and guidance are followed remains with the sponsor. A Mr Talpada attempted to challenge the applicability of the Rules and guidance to his case on the ...

15th May 2018 By

The limits of consent orders: agreement to consider something irrelevant has no effect

Ararso v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 845 is an unusual appeal about the extent to which the Home Office must take account of orders made in previous judicial review proceedings when deciding to re-detain someone. The Cou ...

10th May 2018 By

Unlawful delays by the Home Office: a line in the sand

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 ...

5th April 2018 By

Comment: 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 submit ...

23rd March 2018 By

President 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 r ...

6th March 2018 By

The Upper Tribunal’s costs appeal guidance has been overruled

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 & ...

17th January 2018 By

NGO victory: Home Office policy on EU rough sleepers found unlawful

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 rev ...

14th December 2017 By

Tier 2 sponsor licence revocation challenge fails in High Court

Sivayogam is a religious charity, serving Hindu and Tamil communities in London. Finding priests in the UK and Europe had proven difficult so, in 2009, it applied for registration as a Tier 2 sponsor, allowing the organisation to bring in religious wo ...

31st October 2017 By

“Good deeds” immigration lawyer struck off over judicial reviews

An immigration lawyer praised for his “good deeds” among the Chinese community has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Vay Sui Ip, a partner at Manchester firm Sandbrook Solicitors, was prosecuted by the Solicitors Reg ...

17th October 2017 By

Tribunal criticises government lawyers for “trench warfare” mentality and “inappropriate” conduct

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 Gove ...

9th October 2017 By

Tribunal can (but won’t) hold Home Office in contempt for ignoring consent orders

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 ...

21st September 2017 By

Explainer: Can the Home Secretary really be guilty of contempt of court for breach of a court order?

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 U ...

18th September 2017 By

Test cases on automatic strike out of claims lead to changes at the Upper Tribunal

Many immigration practitioners will have fallen foul of the surprisingly strict approach the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) has, until recently, taken when it comes to the provision of form T485 (the UT equivalent of the Administrative Court’s Certificat ...

30th June 2017 By

Home Office application to delay Calais Jungle child asylum case refused by tribunal

In an oral decision in the case of R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (stay of proceedings – principles) [2017] UKUT 168 (IAC) given on 28 March 2017, the Upper Tribunal refused the Secretary of St ...

3rd May 2017 By

Deport first, appeal later certificates, judicial reviews and fresh claims considered by Upper Tribunal

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, Immi ...

4th April 2017 By

Court of Appeal endorses Home Office practice of issuing supplementary decision letters

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 ...

18th January 2017 By

Removal Windows, Injunctions and Out of Country Appeals: The Acceleration of Enforced Removals

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 ...

21st November 2016 By

Does limiting judicial resources change judicial behaviour?

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 cl ...

19th April 2016 By

Proper reasons must be given for totally without merit certificates

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 ...

11th February 2016 By

President gives guidance on difference between human rights and public law challenges

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 (hu ...

4th November 2015 By

One party is more equal than others in the Upper Tribunal

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 ...

9th October 2015 By
1 2 3