*/
Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Ecuadorian national applied for leave to remain. In March 2011, the defendant Secretary of State rejected that application without reference to the claimant's children. The claimant applied for judicial review and in July, the Secretary of State agreed by consent to review the March 2011 decision. In the same month, the Secretary of State's policy changed with the effect that those in the claimant's position would receive discretionary leave to remain (DLR). In November, the Secretary of State granted the claimant three years' DLR. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to grant him DLR rather than indefinite leave to remain (ILR). That claim was brought late due to the claimant's financial position. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court accepted the claimant's submission that his case had fallen within the types of scenarios in which the Secretary of State had contemplated that the granting of ILR after the policy change in July 2011 would have been appropriate. Further,whilst the delay in bringing the claim had been undue delay, it had not been particularly reprehensible and in the circumstances of the case and declarative relief would be granted.
Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Ecuadorian national applied for leave to remain. In March 2011, the defendant Secretary of State rejected that application without reference to the claimant's children. The claimant applied for judicial review and in July, the Secretary of State agreed by consent to review the March 2011 decision. In the same month, the Secretary of State's policy changed with the effect that those in the claimant's position would receive discretionary leave to remain (DLR). In November, the Secretary of State granted the claimant three years' DLR. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to grant him DLR rather than indefinite leave to remain (ILR). That claim was brought late due to the claimant's financial position. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court accepted the claimant's submission that his case had fallen within the types of scenarios in which the Secretary of State had contemplated that the granting of ILR after the policy change in July 2011 would have been appropriate. Further,whilst the delay in bringing the claim had been undue delay, it had not been particularly reprehensible and in the circumstances of the case and declarative relief would be granted.
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
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC identify good value bottles across the price spectrum – from festive fizz to reliable reds
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
