header-logo header-logo

Immigration

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

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

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