PO (interests of the state Article 8) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 27 June October Before
|
|
- Valerie Shepherd
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal PO (interests of the state Article 8) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 27 June October 2006 Before Senior Immigration Judge Storey Ms S S Ramsumair Mrs J Harris Between Appellant and SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: Mr A N Ikie, Solicitor, from Ikie Solicitors For the Respondent: Ms Lee Ong, Home Office Presenting Officer When addressing the issue of proportionality (Lord Bingham s question 5 in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27) it is only in very limited circumstances that the interests of the state and wider community in the maintenance of effective immigration control will not carry a heavy weight. Whilst the interests of the state and wider community do not carry a fixed weight (GS (Article 9 public interest not a fixity) Serbia and Montenegro [2005] UKIAT 00121), the only factors that might justify heavy weight not being given are likely to be where the state has shown by its own action or inaction that immigration control considerations require modification e.g. where it has adopted but not applied a 1
2 policy to allow certain categories otherwise subject to strict immigration control exceptional leave to remain. DETERMINATION AND REASONS 1) The appellant is a citizen of Nigeria. On 24 January 2002, in a decision taken under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the respondent refused her application to vary leave to remain under paragraph 322(1) with reference to paragraphs of HC 395 as amended. The appellant's appeal was heard by the Adjudicator, Mr R J Oliver. In a determination notified on 24 August 2004 he dismissed her appeal both under the Immigration Rules and Article 8. By virtue of transitional provisions made under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 her application for permission to appeal took effect as an application for reconsideration. This was refused by a Senior Immigration Judge but succeeded on statutory review. 2) At the appeal before the Adjudicator the appellant did not seek to pursue any argument under the Immigration Rules, nor was such an argument raised in the grounds of reconsideration. The sole issue in this case concerns Article 8. 3) At the outset of the appeal an issue arose concerning whether the Adjudicator was right to determine the Article 8 issue in the light of JM* (Rule 62(7); human rights unarguable) Liberia [2006] UKAIT and whether, in consequence, we were bound to say that Article 8 had no prospect of success in view of the need for there to be a further (appealable) immigration decision to remove. There was also an issue of whether in any event, in relation to an appeal such as this, one arising under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and not under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the case of R (Maksimovic v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 1026 Admin should be followed. This case considered that in the context of a s.69(2) appeal under the 1999 Act, human rights had to be dealt with. Prior to completing this determination it has been brought to our notice that the Court of Appeal on 6 October 2006 decided that JM* is wrong on the Article 8 arguability point. Therefore, although we have yet to see the written judgment, we are prepared on the basis of this information to approach this appeal on the basis that the appellant was entitled to rely on Article 8 and that we must make a decision on whether the Adjudicator erred in law in finding that the decision was a proportionate one. 4) We are persuaded that the Adjudicator materially erred in law. He applied the principle set out in M* Croatia (M (Croatia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKIAT 24, [2004] INLR 327) which 2
3 prohibited adjudicators on appeal from considering the merits of the Article 8 claim: indeed he expressly rejected a submission reliant on the House of Lords judgment in Daly [2001] 1 WLR 840, to consider the appellant's Article 8 claim on its merits. Partly on the basis of what had been held in Daly, the Court of Appeal in Huang [2005] INLR 247 decided that M* (Croatia) was wrong and that adjudicators were obliged to decide Article 8 claims on their merits. 5) Additionally we also consider that the Adjudicator erred in law in failing to show that he had, when considering proportionality under Article 8(2), taken into account all relevant considerations. Indeed it is difficult to see that he conducted any kind of balancing exercise at all. 6) Having decided that the Immigration Judge materially erred in law, we next considered whether we were in a position to decide the appeal for ourselves. We decided that we were, since Mr Ikie was unable to identify any evidence concerning recent developments which would have had a material bearing on the matters we had to decide. 7) The respondent does not dispute in this case that the appellant had established both private life and family life relationships in the UK and that the decision refusing to vary her leave to remain amounted to an interference with those relationships. 8) The sole issue is therefore whether the decision amounted or amounts to a disproportionate interference. Whether one does this (as Mr Ikie contends) by reference to the Nhundhu and Chiwera 01/TH/0613 step-bystep approach or by reference to Lord Bingham s step-by-step approach in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27, it is clear (by reference to Huang), that for an appellant to show that his Article 8 rights would be violated, it is necessary to identify circumstances which are truly exceptional. Subsequent case law has confirmed that that is a stringent test: for a summary see WK (Article 8-expulsion cases - review of case-law) Palestinian Territories [2006] UKAIT ) Mr Ikie s principal argument for why we should identify the appellant's circumstances as truly exceptional was that this was a case where the interests of the state and the community in the maintenance of effective immigration control were not to be accorded their normally preponderant weight. He cited the case of GS (Article 8 public interest not a fixity) Serbia and Montenegro [2005] UKIAT to support his argument that the appellant's qualifications and work in the UK as a teacher meant that there was in this case a state and wider community interest in the appellant staying rather than in being subjected to immigration control. However, in our view, Mr Ikie has misunderstood the ratio of GS. That case, it is true, does highlight the point that the public interest side of the (imaginary) scales does not bear a fixed weight. However, the only factors it identified as justifying normally heavy weight not being given to the interest of the state in the effective maintenance of immigration 3
4 control were of limited scope. They arose only where the state has shown by its own action or inaction that immigration control considerations required modification e.g. where it has adopted but not applied a policy to allow certain categories otherwise subject to strict immigration control. This reflects the observation made by Lord Bingham in Razgar at [19], when dealing with the [question 4] issue of whether the proposed removal is an interference which pursue a legitimate aim, that: implementation of a firm and orderly immigration policy is an important function of government in a modern democratic State. In the absence of bad faith, ulterior motive or deliberate abuse of power, it is hard to imagine an adjudicator answering this question [question 4] other than affirmatively. 10) Plainly, therefore, when addressing the issue of proportionality (Lord Bingham s question 5) it is only in very limited circumstances that the interests of the state and wider community in the maintenance of effective immigration control can not carry a heavy weight. 11) In the type of circumstance described by Mr Ikie, by contrast, there has been no conduct of the state so as to justify modifying immigration control considerations. Therefore the existence of an evident need on the part of the state and wider community in the UK presently for trained teachers does not demonstrate that the co-existing interest of the state and wider community in effective immigration control is no longer an imperative. 12) Furthermore, on the particular facts of this case there were specific reasons why the immigration control considerations were to be seen as weighing heavily in the overall balance against the appellant. She had remained in the UK well beyond her permitted six months period of visit granted to her on 8 December 2000 and had proceeded, whilst here as an overstayer, to obtain further teaching qualifications and experience. She at no stage during this period sought permission to pursue and engage in these activities. 13) In considering the balancing exercise required under Article 8 we take into account in the appellant's favour: that she had previously spent nine years in the UK lawfully, having arrived here when she was nine; that during those nine years she went to school here; that back in Nigeria she lost her husband (to cancer) after only six years of marriage and also her mother in the following year; that during these difficult times, her youngest brother John (who had been in the UK previously) came to live with her before returning over a year later to the UK; that in Nigeria she was a university graduate who had gone into the teaching profession there, rising to a position equivalent to deputy head; that her desire to come to the UK was driven by her loneliness as a widow and her strong wish to be near her three siblings in the UK; that whilst in the UK she has strengthened her knowledge of teaching, undertaking several courses, and receiving glowing references from senior UK teachers; that she was a teacher with skills in short supply in the UK currently; that she 4
5 has no criminal convictions; that she has done a lot of useful church and community work; and that whilst here she has strengthened her close family ties with her siblings, living here with her younger brother John (with whom she is particularly close) and providing him considerable guidance after their mother s death. 14) However, such considerations are greatly outweighed by others counting against the appellant. Although she lived in the UK for some nine formative years, she had spent the majority of her life in Nigeria, and, after returning from the UK, had done much to reintegrate there: obtaining university qualifications, entering employment, marrying and enjoying (until her husband s death) six years of normal married life there. She was an adult with no health problems. Her siblings in the UK were now independent adults. Although she has claimed she was uncertain about her immigration status due to her previous residence here, we are quite unable to accept that she was unaware that she had only limited leave of six months and that her stay thereafter was unlawful. In this regard we note that her younger brother John had made careful enquiries of the British High Commission in Nigeria and would surely have passed on what he had learnt, namely that she could not seek to re-enter to the UK as a returning resident. It may be that she had suffered from not receiving better immigration advice in the past, e.g. in relation to the highly skilled migrant scheme, but such advice would only in any event have opened up a further opportunity for her to be considered by an overseas post for entry clearance to the UK, not for being able to remain in the UK. As the Adjudicator properly noted at paragraph 43, this opportunity remains, albeit it is one which requires her to depart and then apply from abroad for entry clearance in the same way as any other applicant. 15) For the above reasons, we consider that the appellant s circumstances are not truly exceptional. The decision to refuse to vary her leave to remain was and is not disproportionate. 16) We conclude: The Adjudicator materially erred in law. The decision we substitute for his is to dismiss the appeal both under the Immigration Rules and under Article 8. Signed Senior Immigration Judge Storey Date 5
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL DM (Timing of funding application) Zimbabwe [2006] UKAIT 00088 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Determination Promulgated: On: 24 October 2006 30 November 2006
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ST (s92(4)(a): meaning of has made ) Turkey [2007] UKAIT 00085 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 15 May 2007 Before: Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL GK (Long residence immigration history) Lebanon [2008] UKAIT 00011 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House on 8 January 2008 Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE STOREY Between
More informationAhmadi (s. 47 decision: validity; Sapkota) [2012] UKUT 00147 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PETER LANE. Between JAVAD AHMADI
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ahmadi (s. 47 decision: validity; Sapkota) [2012] UKUT 00147 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice On 7 March 2012 Determination Promulgated
More informationThe Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2006 No. 1003 IMMIGRATION The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 Made - - - - - 30th March 2006 Laid before Parliament 4th April 2006 Coming into force - - 30th
More informationAsylum and Immigration Tribunal. Guidance Note. July 2005. Case Management Review Hearings
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Guidance Note July 2005 Case Management Review Hearings This note is for guidance only. The Tribunal conducting an appeal hearing may adapt its procedure as required by
More informationCode of practice for employers Avoiding unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working
Code of practice for employers Avoiding unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working [xx] April 2014 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 23(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality
More informationThe Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (as subsequently amended up to 17 th February 2015) This document shows the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ( the Tribunal ) is created by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 ( the 2004 Act ).
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIONS IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBERS OF THE FIRST- TIER TRIBUNAL AND THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
Tribunals b Judiciary PRACTICE DIRECTIONS IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBERS OF THE FIRST- TIER TRIBUNAL AND THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Contents PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1 Interpretation, etc. PART 2 PRACTICE DIRECTIONS
More information2014 No. 2604 (L. 31) TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES. The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2014 No. 2604 (L. 31) TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 Made - - - - 24th September
More informationThe Code. for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Table of Contents Introduction... 2 General Principles... 3 The Decision Whether to Prosecute... 4 The Full Code Test... 6 The Evidential Stage... 6 The Public
More informationThe Criminal Procedure Rules Part 17 as in force on 2 February 2015 PART 17 EXTRADITION
Contents of this Part PART 17 EXTRADITION Section 1: general rules When this Part applies rule 17.1 Meaning of court, presenting officer and defendant rule 17.2 Section 2: extradition proceedings in a
More informationDecision 147/2011 Dr X and Fife NHS Board. Details of complaints. Reference No: 201100681, 201100688, 201100795 Decision Date: 5 August 2011
and Fife NHS Board Details of complaints Reference No: 201100681, 201100688, 201100795 Decision Date: 5 August 2011 Kevin Dunion Scottish Information Commissioner Kinburn Castle Doubledykes Road St Andrews
More information2015 No. 548 (L. 6) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES. The Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2015
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2015 No. 548 (L. 6) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES The Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2015 Made - - - - 4th March 2015 Laid before Parliament 9th March
More informationJUDGMENT. BA (Nigeria) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) and others
Michaelmas Term [2009] UKSC 7 On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 119 JUDGMENT BA (Nigeria) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) and others PE (Cameroon) (FC) (Respondent)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 116/09 [2010] NZSC 109 MATTHEW JOHN BIRCHLER NEW ZEALAND POLICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 116/09 [2010] NZSC 109 MATTHEW JOHN BIRCHLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE Hearing: 11 August 2010 Court: Counsel: Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and William Young
More informationAUTOMART LIMITED V. WAQA ROKOTUINASAU - ERCA NO. 9 OF 2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COURT AT SUVA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CASE NUMBER: ERCA NO. 09 OF 2012 BETWEEN: AUTOMART LIMITED APPELLANT AND: WAQA ROKOTUINASAU RESPONDENT Appearances: Ms. Drova for the Appellant.
More informationCIS/3066/1998 OF THE COMMISSIONER
..... - CIS/3066/1998 DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER 1. This is an appeal, brought by the claimant with the leave of a Commissioner, against a decision of the Plymouth social security appeal tribunal dated
More informationJudicial Communications Office
Friday 22 March 2013 COURT FINDS PRACTICE FOR DEALING WITH NON-PAYMENT OF FINES IS UNLAWFUL Summary of Judgment On Friday 22 March 2013, the Divisional Court delivered two judgments relating to five judicial
More informationCHUKS NWAWULOR EBONKA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20090127 Docket: IMM-2758-08 Citation: 2009 FC 80 Ottawa, Ontario, January 27, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen BETWEEN: CHUKS NWAWULOR EBONKA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationB e f o r e: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1888 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No. CO/653/2007 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Date:
More informationILPA response to Inquiry into Asylum Support for Children and Young People
ILPA response to Inquiry into Asylum Support for Children and Young People Annexe 1 Caselist The cases below are drawn from ILPA s February 2010 response evidence to the Ministry of Justice consultation
More informationORDER MO-2114 Appeal MA-060192-1 York Regional Police Services Board
ORDER MO-2114 Appeal MA-060192-1 York Regional Police Services Board Tribunal Services Department Services de tribunal administratif 2 Bloor Street East 2, rue Bloor Est Suite 1400 Bureau 1400 Toronto,
More informationKatsonga ( Slip Rule ; FtT s general powers) [2016] UKUT 00228 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Katsonga ( Slip Rule ; FtT s general powers) [2016] UKUT 00228 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Stoke On 29 January 2016 Decision Promulgated Before MR
More informationCommunity Care and Individuals subject to Immigration Control - Case Law Update Jonathan Moffett
Community Care and Individuals subject to Immigration Control - Case Law Update Jonathan Moffett INTRODUCTION 1. The interrelationship between the statutory scheme governing the provision of community
More informationJUDGMENT. From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. before. Lord Neuberger Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Sumption Lord Reed
[2015] UKPC 37 Privy Council Appeal No 0031 of 2014 and 0032 of 2014 JUDGMENT NH International (Caribbean) Limited (Appellant) v National Insurance Property Development Company Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad
More informationYour Human Rights A guide for refugees and asylum seekers
Your Human Rights A guide for refugees and asylum seekers Please note that this guide is not legal advice. If you need advice please see the Useful contacts section for sources of information and advice.
More informationSupreme Court Judgment in Coventry and Ors v Lawrence and another [2015] UKSC 50
Alerter 24 th July 2015 Supreme Court Judgment in Coventry and Ors v Lawrence and another [2015] UKSC 50 The Supreme Court has handed down its Judgment in Coventry v Lawrence in which it considered the
More informationOFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP")
THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2001/15 OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP") FOR TEMPUS GROUP PLC ("TEMPUS") 1. The Takeover Panel met on 31 October to hear an appeal by WPP against the Panel Executive's refusal to allow
More informationFreedom of information guidance Exemptions guidance Section 41 Information provided in confidence
Freedom of information guidance Exemptions guidance Section 41 Information provided in confidence 14 May 2008 Contents Introduction 2 What information may be covered by this exemption? 3 Was the information
More informationFor your lawyers only: the UK Supreme Court ruling on legal advice privilege
For your lawyers only: the UK Supreme Court ruling on legal advice privilege ARTICLE 1 MARCH 2013 The UK Supreme Court has upheld the current position that legal advice privilege may only be claimed in
More informationThe Court of Protection Rules 2007
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2007 No. 1744 (L. 12) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES The Court of Protection Rules 2007 Made - - - - - 25th June 2007 Laid before Parliament 4th July 2007 Coming into force -
More informationUNFAIR DISMISSAL: WHEN WILL THE COURTS ALLOW EXTENDED TIME LIMITS?
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: WHEN WILL THE COURTS ALLOW EXTENDED TIME LIMITS? This article appeared in Employment Law Journal February 2008 Number 87 In the light of a series of recent EAT cases, Marc Jones and Mandeep
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS
PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS The new Practice Direction Case Management Pilot supplementing the Court of Protection Rules 2007 is made by the President of the Court of Protection under the powers delegated
More informationVolunteers status under antidiscrimination. now? A personal view from Declan O Dempsey and Olivia Faith Dobbie, Cloisters
Volunteers status under antidiscrimination law: where to now? A personal view from Declan O Dempsey and Olivia Faith Dobbie, Cloisters Judgment in the case of X v Mid Sussex CAB was handed down by the
More informationRights of appeal. Version 3.0
Rights of appeal Version 3.0 Guidance on when there is a right of appeal against decisions in immigration cases, including mechanisms to prevent repeat rights of appeal and prevent delay from appeals against
More informationImmigration directorate instructions Chapter 13: criminality guidance in Article 8 ECHR cases. Version 5.0
Immigration directorate instructions Chapter 13: criminality guidance in Article 8 ECHR cases Version 5.0 28 July 2014 Contents Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Framework 1.3 Section 55 duty Section
More informationJAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT
[2014] JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
More informationUK Employment Law. Insight. Age discrimination: A reminder. McCririck v Channel 4 Television Corporation. January 2014. By Nick Marshall, Associate
January 2014 UK Employment Law Age discrimination: A reminder McCririck v Channel 4 Television Corporation By Nick Marshall, Associate The recent judgment of the Employment Tribunal in the John McCririck
More informationTRIBU\AL DES SER\ ICES FINANCIERS ET DES SERVICES AUX COXSOMMATELIRS
FI\XCIAI. X\D CO\SU1ER SER\ ICES TRIBUNAL TRIBU\AL DES SER\ ICES FINANCIERS ET DES SERVICES AUX COXSOMMATELIRS Citation: New Brunswick (Financial and Consumer Services Commission) v. Emond and Drapeau,
More informationA GUIDE TO FAMILY LAW LEGAL AID
A GUIDE TO FAMILY LAW LEGAL AID Important new rules in relation to legal aid were introduced on 1 April 2013 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). This legal guide
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIONS IMMIGRATION JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL. Contents PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 SCOPE
PRACTICE DIRECTIONS IMMIGRATION JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Contents PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Interpretation 2. Scope PART 2 SCOPE PART 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS
More informationJUMBOGATE LTD. - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS TRIBUNAL: JUDGE GREG SINFIELD
[] UKFTT 0064 (TC) TC04271 Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application to set aside strike out under rule 8(3)(c) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 09 and reinstate appeals
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-485-2720 [2013] NZHC 3057. Applicant. PARAGON BUILDERS LIMITED Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-485-2720 [2013] NZHC 3057 UNDER Section 290 of the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND CENATIO LIMITED Applicant PARAGON BUILDERS LIMITED Respondent
More informationILP A Briefing Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill House 0/ Lords - Committee stage IMMIGRATION LAW PRACTITIONERS' ASSOCIATION
ILP A Briefing House 0/ Lords - Committee stage ILPA IMMIGRATION LAW PRACTITIONERS' ASSOCIATION Briefing on the Government amendments to clause 14. For debate Tuesday 4th May. In summary, amendments 46A
More informationNEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Copyright 2013 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law
5:23A-1.1 Title; authority; scope; intent (a) This chapter, which is promulgated under authority of N.J.S.A. 52:27D-124, 52:17D-198, 40A:14A-43, 40A:14B-76 and 40:55D-53.2a, shall be known as, and may
More informationPATENTS ACT 1977. IN THE MATTER OF Application No. GB 9808661.4 in the name of Pintos Global Services Ltd DECISION. Introduction
PATENTS ACT 1977 IN THE MATTER OF Application No. GB 9808661.4 in the name of Pintos Global Services Ltd DECISION Introduction 1. Patent application number GB 9808661.4 entitled, A system for exchanging
More informationLegislative Council Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services. Compensation for Wrongful Conviction
For discussion on 25 March 2014 Legislative Council Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services Compensation for Wrongful Conviction BACKGROUND At the Panel meeting of 28 January 2014, Members
More informationAn employer s guide to the administration of the civil penalty scheme
An employer s guide to the administration of the civil penalty scheme 28 July 2014 Produced by the Home Office Crown copyright 2014 Contents 1. Introduction... 3 Changes to the scheme in May 2014... 3
More informationEMPLOYERS UPDATE: DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW JANUARY 2016
20 th January 2016 EMPLOYERS UPDATE: DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW JANUARY 2016 Apologies for the late (yet again) publication of this quarter s Newsletter. A combination of varying work commitments,
More informationPresident s Guidance Bulletin number 2 Case management decisions and appeals therefrom. December 2010.
President s Guidance Bulletin number 2 Case management decisions and appeals therefrom December 2010. Introduction If my first Guidance (regarding split-hearings, issued in May 2010 and published in the
More informationFreedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 20 June 2016 Public Authority: Address: Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service New Scotland Yard Broadway London SW1H 0BG Decision
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER S DECISION ISLE OF MAN COURTS OF JUSTICE DEEMSTERS WALK, BUCKS ROAD, DOUGLAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY Appellant -v- MR. A Respondent At the Appeal hearing before
More informationDecision Notice. Decision 136/2015: Mr Patrick Kelly and NHS Tayside. Information relating to Professor Muftah Salem Eljamel
Decision Notice Decision 136/2015: Mr Patrick Kelly and NHS Tayside Information relating to Professor Muftah Salem Eljamel Reference No: 201500390 Decision Date: 24 August 2015 Summary On 2 December 2014,
More informationDecision 131/2008 Mr N and East Ayrshire Council. Tender Documents. Reference No: 200800298 Decision Date: 7 October 2008
Decision 131/2008 Tender Documents Reference No: 200800298 Decision Date: 7 October 2008 Kevin Dunion Scottish Information Commissioner Kinburn Castle Doubledykes Road St Andrews KY16 9DS Tel: 01334 464610
More informationWhen is an interest not an interest?
When is an interest not an interest? Last month s Personal Injury Law Journal examined the continuing uncertainty in relation to challenges to the validity of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) where the
More informationUpdate to cuts/changes to legal aid for immigration advice:
Update to cuts/changes to legal aid for immigration advice: 1. This note accompanies a discussion at the Ealing Advice Forum on 16 th May at Perceval House, West London concerning the ongoing changes to
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY MR JUSTICE BURTON SIR RICHARD GASKELL SHERIFF PRINCIPAL JOHN McINNES QC and MR ROBERT SEABROOK QC.
IN THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL No: IPT/03/32/H Before : Date: 14 th November 2006 LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY MR JUSTICE BURTON SIR RICHARD GASKELL SHERIFF PRINCIPAL JOHN McINNES QC and MR ROBERT SEABROOK
More informationDefending An Employment Tribunal Claim
Defending An Employment Tribunal Claim 1. Employment tribunals What you need to know to defend a claim Employment tribunals hear cases and make decisions on employment issues such as unfair dismissal,
More informationThe Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2013 No. 1237 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Made - - - - 28th May 2013 Laid before Parliament 31st May 2013
More informationAppellant s notice (All appeals except small claims track appeals)
Appellant s notice (All appeals except small claims track appeals) Appeal Court Ref. No. Date filed For Court use only Notes for guidance are available which will help you complete this form. Please read
More informationPg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP
Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited
More informationBUSINESS APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TURKISH- EC ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT (ECAA)
CHAPTER 6 SECTION 6 BUSINESS APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TURKISH- EC ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT (ECAA) Contents 1. Background 2. Applicants who cannot take the benefit of the standstill clause 2.1. Fraudulent /
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2201/2003. of 27 November 2003
23.12.2003 L 338/1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial
More informationPrinciples of Good Administration
Principles of Good Administration Principles of Good Administration Good administration by public bodies means: 1 Getting it right 2 Being customer focused 3 Being open and accountable 4 Acting fairly
More informationCONTRACT MANAGEMENT - Mental Health Guidance April 2014 v2.1 Version: Issue date: Last review date: Owned by:
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT - Mental Health Guidance April 2014 v2.1 Version: Issue date: Last review date: Owned by: 2.1 1 August 2014 14 th July 2014 Service Development 2.0 TBC 14 th April 2014 Service Development
More informationCONSUMER INSURANCE LAW: PRE-CONTRACT DISCLOSURE AND MISREPRESENTATION
THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION CONSUMER INSURANCE LAW: PRE-CONTRACT DISCLOSURE AND MISREPRESENTATION Joint Report SUMMARY 1.1 The English and Scottish Law Commissions recommend new
More informationUPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER. GUIDANCE NOTE 2011 No 2
UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER GUIDANCE NOTE 2011 No 2 REPORTING DECISIONS OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER This guidance note is issued under Paragraph 7 of Schedule
More informationEMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013 By Justin Valentine Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amends section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work
More informationOverseas lawyers and the BVI winds of change?
Overseas lawyers and the BVI winds of change? Publication - 10/06/2016 A recent judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court ( ECSC) has potentially undermined the
More informationGA/2014/0002. Greene King Brewing and Retailing Ltd Greene King Retailing Ltd
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER Gambling Tribunal Reference: Appellant: Respondent: Judge: GA/2014/0001 Greene King Brewing and Retailing Ltd The Gambling Commission NJ Warren DECISION NOTICE
More informationArbitration Agreements and Insolvency Proceedings
Winding up companies Arbitration clauses Stay of proceedings for arbitration Arbitration Agreements and Insolvency Proceedings The British Virgin Islands (BVI) Court tightens up on creditors raising spurious
More informationCourt of Protection Note. The Court of Protection and Personal Injury Claims. Simon Edwards
Court of Protection Note The Court of Protection and Personal Injury Claims Simon Edwards 1. What happens when P brings proceedings for damages for personal injuries, those injuries being, substantially,
More informationR(SB)17/87 SUPPLEMENTARYBENEFIT
SUPPLEMENTARYBENEFIT NOTE ISSUED ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER Resources moneypossessedby solicitorm agent for clientis actual, not notional,resourceof client;no speculationas to avoidancemeasures.
More informationRefugee Council and Refugee Action joint response to:
Refugee Council and Refugee Action joint response to: Consultation on the Proposed Amendments to the General Civil Contract (Solicitors) and General Civil Contract (NfP) Relating to Immigration and Asylum
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 15 LCDT 022/10. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 15 LCDT 022/10 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF THE NEW ZEALAND
More informationLegal professional privilege (section 42)
ICO lo Legal professional privilege (section 42) Freedom of Information Act Contents Introduction... 2 Overview... 2 What FOIA says... 2 General principles of the section 42 exemption... 3 Two types of
More informationImmigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 CHAPTER 13 Explanatory Notes have been produced to assist in the understanding of this Act and are available separately 6 50 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality
More informationLEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS
LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS These Regulations came into force on 1 July 2014. 1 Introduction 1.1 These Regulations govern the Union s legal Scheme. The Rules of the Union set out your other rights and entitlements.
More informationNSW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION SUPPORTS LITIGATION FUNDING MARKET
NSW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION SUPPORTS LITIGATION FUNDING MARKET Introduction 1. The New South Wales Court of Appeal, in a unanimous Judgment on Thursday 31 March 2005, sent some clear messages to legal
More informationDEFENDING THE DEPENDENCY CLAIM: CASES AND STATUTORY MATERIALS
DEFENDING THE DEPENDENCY CLAIM: CASES AND STATUTORY MATERIALS Anthony Reddiford, Guildhall Chambers Civil Law Reform Bill 2009 1 1 Extension of right of action (1) Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act
More informationRedundancy & Redeployment Policy. Transformation & Human Resources
Redundancy & Redeployment Policy Transformation & Human Resources Issued by HR Policy Team Effective from REDUNDANCY AND REDEPLOYMENT POLICY 1 General Principles Purpose 1.1 The purpose of the policy is
More informationWelcome to NeTWork, your Employment Law Newsletter from Taylor Walton Solicitors
Welcome to NeTWork, your Employment Law Newsletter from Taylor Walton Solicitors This month we discuss: Zero Hours Contracts; Whistleblowing - Dispute about contractual terms can be a matter of public
More informationAbusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2]
Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] Section CONTENTS PART 1 ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR Abusive behaviour towards partner or ex-partner 1 Aggravation of offence where abuse
More information- v - Hearing Held on the papers on 17 July 2015 at Fox Court, London.
IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL Appeal No: EA/2015/0021 GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER (INFORMATION RIGHTS) SALLY BALLAN Appellant - v - INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondent Hearing Held on the papers on 17 July
More informationTIER 5. version 04/14. Tier 5 (Youth Mobility Scheme) of the Points - Based System Policy Guidance
TIER 5 (Youth Mobility Scheme) version 04/14 Tier 5 (Youth Mobility Scheme) of the Points - Based System Policy Guidance This guidance is to be used for applications made on or after 6 April 2014 Contents
More informationHow To Decide If A Dependency Claim Can Be Made Under The Fatal Accident Act
Fatal accidents and fatal errors Gordon Exall Gordon Exall looks at the lessons that practitioners undertaking fatal accident cases can learn from the recent professional negligence case of Amin v- Imran
More informationTHE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF BETTING SHOP SERVICES LIMITED Claimant v SOUTHEND-ON-SEA BOROUGH COUNCIL Defendant
Page 1 of 8 Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 105 (Admin) CO/9266/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL 14
More informationFOR THE GREATER GOOD? SUMMARY DISMISSAL, PSYCHIATRIC INJURY AND REMOTENESS
FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SUMMARY DISMISSAL, PSYCHIATRIC INJURY AND REMOTENESS While stress at work claims where a Claimant has been exposed to a lengthy and continuous period of stress recently benefited
More informationFreedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 8 June 2015 Public Authority: Address: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) 100 Parliament Street London SW1A 2BQ Decision (including any steps ordered)
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2319. September Term, 2012 MARY LYONS KENNETH HAUTMAN A/K/A JOHN HAUTMAN
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2319 September Term, 2012 MARY LYONS v. KENNETH HAUTMAN A/K/A JOHN HAUTMAN Zarnoch, Graeff, Moylan, Charles E. Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
More informationAN BILLE UM CHIONTÓIRÍ A ATHSHLÁNÚ 2007 REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL 2007. Mar a tionscnaíodh As initiated ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
AN BILLE UM CHIONTÓIRÍ A ATHSHLÁNÚ 2007 REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL 2007 Section 1. Interpretation. Mar a tionscnaíodh As initiated ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 2. Application to have sentence spent. 3.
More informationTier 2 the noose continues to
magrath LLP Tier 2 the noose continues to tighten As part of a continuing drive to tighten the rules around sponsorship of foreign nationals and the ability of those nationals to settle permanently in
More informationIN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT CASE NO. 193/2010 In the matter between:- PATRICK NGWENYA APPLICANT AND AUDITOR GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT In re: PATRICK
More informationSPECIALIST 24 HR CRIMINAL DEFENCE
SPECIALIST 24 HR CRIMINAL DEFENCE What happens at the Police Station? Often the most important stage in any case is what happens in the police station. In most cases you will be under arrest and it may
More informationWhat Does Article 2 Require in Cases of Medical Negligence or Analogous Situations? KATE GRANGE
What Does Article 2 Require in Cases of Medical Negligence or Analogous Situations? KATE GRANGE Thursday 25 th January 2007 1) Introduction 1. The aim of this paper is to consider a particular category
More informationON APPEAL FROM: The Information Commissioner s Decision Notice No: FER0464481 Dated: 29 January 2013
IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER (INFORMATION RIGHTS) Appeal No: EA/2013/0037 ON APPEAL FROM: The Information Commissioner s Decision Notice No: FER0464481 Dated: 29 January 2013 Appellant:
More informationUNIVERSITIES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT - LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. SUMMARY UNIVERSITIES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT - LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to set out our advice to the Trustee Company 1 with regard to the legal considerations
More information