header-logo header-logo

Immigration

08 December 2011
Issue: 7493 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Mayaya and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 193 (Nov)

The secretary of state’s policy on discretionary leave provided that a person who had committed a serious crime would not normally receive a grant of discretionary leave for a period exceeding six months, and while those who had been granted discretionary leave were ordinarily eligible for indefinite leave to remain after six years, those who had committed serious crimes could only obtain indefinite leave to remain after 10 years of discretionary leave to remain. At its highest, the no-fettering principle meant that a person had to know what the relevant policy of a public authority entailed and had to be able to make submissions about its application in their individual case. The public authority then had to consider that case on its merits.

The discretionary policy breached the no-fettering principle by suggesting that a person always had to have had at least 10 years’ discretionary leave to be granted indefinite leave to

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

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

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

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