header-logo header-logo

03 March 2011
Issue: 7455 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Asylum

R (on the application of Murdock) v Secretary of State [2011] EWCA Civ 161, [2011] All ER (D) 254 (Feb)

It would be contrary to the policy and objects of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Act (NA 2002) to impose an obligation on the Secretary of State when refusing an overstayer’s application for leave to remain to make at the same time an appealable refusal decision so as to confer a right of appeal.

It would be contrary to the policy and objects of NA 2002 because the list of appealable immigration decisions in s 82(2) made it clear that Parliament did not intend that overstayers, unlike those who were lawfully in the UK with leave, should have a right of appeal against a refusal of leave to remain. It was one thing to say that if there was a right of appeal under NA 2002, the policy of the Act was that all outstanding issues should be dealt with at that appeal; it was quite another to say that where there was no right of appeal

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

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll