header-logo header-logo

14 August 2015
Issue: 7665 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

Detention Action v Lord Chancellor;Subnom R (on the application of Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and others [2015] EWCA Civ 840, [2015] All ER (D) 314 (Jul)

The defendant Lord Chancellor appealed against the judge’s decision that the Fast Track Rules (the FTR), which governed appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against refusals by the Secretary of State of asylum applications, were ultra vires. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FTR were systematically unfair and unjust, as they had not struck the correct balance between speed and efficiency, and fairness and justice.

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
The controversial Mazur ruling, which caused widespread uncertainty about the role of non-solicitors in litigation work, has been overturned on appeal
Two landmark social media cases in the US could influence social media regulation in the UK, lawyers predict
Barristers have urged the government to set up Nightingale-style specialist courts, with jury trials, to prioritise rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse trials
Victims of violent crimes who suffer life-changing injuries receive less than half the financial support today than those in the 1990s, according to a senior personal injury lawyer
Rising numbers of cases, an increase in litigants in person and an overall lack of investment is piling pressure on the family court, the Law Society has warned
back-to-top-scroll