GO v MN and others (interim care order)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made an order for an interim care order and an order under of the Children Act 1989 in respect of a seven year-old boy, where there were very real dangers that his emotional safety would be significantly at risk if the court did not remove him from his half-sister's home immediately.

R (on the application of Alladin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Wadhwa and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The two appellants appealed against the dismissal of a judicial review claim and refusal of permission for judicial review, respectively, in relation to decisions of the Secretary of State to grant them limited discretionary leave to remain, as opposed to indefinite leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing both appeals, held that there had been no material illegality in the decisions.

UZ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) that it had jurisdiction to deal with his application for permission for judicial review and refusing permission. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the claimant's objection to the jurisdiction of the UT had been and was well-founded. The decisions being challenged had been the rejection of his claim under the legacy scheme, which had not fallen within Practice Direction (Upper Tribunal: Judicial Review Jurisdiction).

N v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Detention. The claimant claimed damages for unlawful immigration detention due to her allegations of torture and misfeasance in public office with respect to her attempted removal absent consideration of her further representations. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no independent evidence of torture and the fact that the attempted removal had been unlawful did not mean that the purpose of her detention had ceased to be lawful. Further, there was no evidence of the relevant officials' state of mind such as to find misfeasance in public office.

R (on the application of Natalia Heritage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another

Immigration Leave to remain. Following the claimant Russian national's divorce from a British citizen, the defendant Secretary of State refused her further leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on the fact that her former spouse had worked elsewhere in the European Union during their marriage. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had been Wednesbury unreasonable in failing to take into account that the claimant had been exercising rights as a family member under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for some of the period she had been in the UK.

Bogdanic v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Statutory instrument Construction. The Secretary of State claimed that clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom were found hiding in a lorry driven by the appellant in an immigration control zone at Dunkirk and gave notice of imposition of a civil penalty on the appellant, under of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended by the . The amendments were brought into effect by a Commencement Order. The appellant appealed against the penalties and a point of law arose as to the proper interpretation of the Commencement Order. The Administrative Court held that the Commencement Order was to be read as including by clear implication additional wording to indicate that the amendments also applied in relation to immigration control zones.

R (on the application of Dong) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Vietnamese national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision granting her and her children discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no indication at all in any of the documents that any assessment had ever been made by the Secretary of State of what the best interests of the claimant's elder child might be, in accordance with of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

*R (on the applicaton of Buer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant was a Turkish worker who had been employed in the United Kingdom for four years before being refused indefinite leave to remain based on art6(1) of Decision No1-80 made pursuant to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement. He was refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision to grant him a further three years' leave. He was granted permission to appeal in respect of the 'standstill clause' at art13 of the Decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal as it was clear under the caselaw from the Court of Justice of the European Union that arts6(1) and 13 of the Decision were directed at different situations and his rights were covered by art6(1) as applied by the Secretary of State.

*R (on the application of Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Education Higher education. The claimant, who had discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, was ineligible for a student loan as a result of her immigration status. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant Secretary of State's appeal, found that the defendant Secretary of State had adopted a lawful bright line rule in formulating the 'basic category' of eligible students given in para2 ofpt2 of Sch1 to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011.

R (on the application of Gunduz) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant was a failed asylum seeker whose case fell within the Secretary of State's legacy programme sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to grant him discretionary, rather than indefinite, leave to remain, contending, inter alia, that not applying the older practice of granting indefinite leave to remain in his case was unlawful discrimination or acting conspicuously unfairly against him. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the applicable policy had been that which was in force as at the date of the decision and no illegality had arisen.