header-logo header-logo

12 April 2013
Issue: 7555 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

J1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 279, [2013] All ER (D) 283 (Mar)

It was established law that: (i) in cases where the claimant sought asylum or a right to remain in the UK on human rights grounds, the court or tribunal had to determine that claim on the basis of current evidence; (ii) where the claim was based upon dangers confronting the claimant in their home state, that determination involved an assessment of what would happen, or what there was a real risk of happening, in the future; (iii) in determining the claim the court or tribunal would take into account any undertaking or assurance given by the secretary of state, in so far as it was relevant to the issues under consideration; (iv) such an assurance or undertaking could not cut down the legal protection to which the claimant was entitled; (v) if the route or method of return was unknown, the court or tribunal might in appropriate cases leave that matter for later decision by the secretary of state,

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll