header-logo header-logo

Immigration

10 March 2011
Issue: 7456 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

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 the 2002 Act 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

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll