header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 January 2007
Issue: 7257 / Categories: Features , Immigration & asylum , Community care
printer mail-detail

community care/asylum support

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

R (Binomugisha) v Southwark LBC [2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 83 (Sep)

FRESH ASYLUM CLAIMS

The decision of the High Court in R (Binomugisha) v Southwark LBC makes it difficult for a local social services authority to refuse to accommodate a failed asylum seeker who makes what purports to be a fresh asylum or human rights claim to remain in the UK if:
(i) the individual is one of the more vulnerable individuals who, as asylum seekers, were
accommodated by local authorities; and
(ii) the purported fresh claim is not manifestly unfounded.

At a more general level, this case and the following case illustrate a reluctance on the part of the courts to assist the government in the implementation of immigration decisions.

The facts

Binomugisha, a Ugandan national, arrived in the UK aged 15 in October 2002. He entered the UK on a false passport and, accordingly, was (and is) in the UK in breach of the immigration laws. In
October 2003, aged 16, he claimed asylum. He was referred to Southwark London Borough Council,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll