header-logo header-logo

18 September 2009
Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Grave interference with family life

An Afghani wife from Pakistan has won the right to join her refugee husband in the UK because refusal by the Appeal Immigration Tribunal violated her Art 8 rights.

In refusing entry the Appeal Immigration Tribunal (AIT) said that under the Immigration Rules a wife could not join a husband who had limited leave to stay in the UK if they marry abroad after he came to seek asylum. The wife appealed on the grounds that it unlawfully interfered with family life under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The AIT acknowledged that the Immigration Rules discriminate unfairly against such refugees particularly when other classes of migrants are not under such disability but it warned against using Art 8 to ‘correct perceived faults in legislative provisions’.

Richard Cahill, solicitor at Cahill De Fonseka and immigration specialist said that the lack of provisions for post-flight spouse to join recognised refugees in the UK was based on ‘concerns about speculative asylum claims’ and ‘entry clearance applications based on marriages of convenience’.

The Court

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll