*/
Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national arrived in the United Kingdom as a spouse of a person settled and present in the UK. The defendant Home Secretary made two consecutive decisions permitting him to remain on a limited basis. The claimant overstayed his permission by two years and eight months. He made a further application for leave to remain, which the Secretary of State refused. The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that it was settled law that considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were embedded in the Immigration Rules such that if the Secretary of State applied those Rules then, ordinarily, art 8 considerations would have been fully catered for. In the instant case, no good arguable grounds had been advanced that there had been factors particular to the claimant that had not been capable of being assessed from within the existing framework of Rules and which therefore needed to be assessed outside of the Rules. Further, the Secretary of State had taken into account all of the factors and matters which had been relevant to the claimant. Finally, there had been no error of law in the approach adopted by the Secretary of State to the question of whether there had been insurmountable obstacles to relocation.
Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national arrived in the United Kingdom as a spouse of a person settled and present in the UK. The defendant Home Secretary made two consecutive decisions permitting him to remain on a limited basis. The claimant overstayed his permission by two years and eight months. He made a further application for leave to remain, which the Secretary of State refused. The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that it was settled law that considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were embedded in the Immigration Rules such that if the Secretary of State applied those Rules then, ordinarily, art 8 considerations would have been fully catered for. In the instant case, no good arguable grounds had been advanced that there had been factors particular to the claimant that had not been capable of being assessed from within the existing framework of Rules and which therefore needed to be assessed outside of the Rules. Further, the Secretary of State had taken into account all of the factors and matters which had been relevant to the claimant. Finally, there had been no error of law in the approach adopted by the Secretary of State to the question of whether there had been insurmountable obstacles to relocation.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
