header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 December 2011
Issue: 7493 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll