header-logo header-logo

Immigration

23 March 2012
Issue: 7506 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Lamichhane v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 260, [2012] All ER (D) 88 (Mar)

It was established that the service of a notice under s 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was in the discretion of the secretary of state. He was not obliged to take that step and would presumably do so only if he was content that the tribunal should consider any matters put forward in response to it. Although good and efficient administration was furthered by the service of a s 120 notice, that was not a good or sufficient reason to do violence to the statutory wording and impose a duty where Parliament had clearly not done so. As the secretary of state was not under a duty to serve a s 120 notice the fact that he did not do so could not render an immigration decision unlawful. An applicant on whom no s 120 notice had been served could not raise before the tribunal any ground for the grant of leave to remain different from that

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll