header-logo header-logo

15 July 2016
Issue: 7707 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Behary) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 702, [2016] All ER (D) 43 (Jul)

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing two linked appeals, considered the meaning of “established presence” in para 14 of Appendix C of the Immigration Rules, in respect of two appellants who had been refused an extension to their Tier 4 student visas because they had applied the day after their previous leave had expired. The court held that the word ‘current’ in para 14 did not encompass “recent” or “latest”, but referred to an existing state of affairs. It required the applicant concerned to have the relevant leave (or entry clearance) at the date on which he made his application for leave. If at the date of application that leave had expired, it was not current.

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

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

From global fraud cases to fishing off-grid, Mishcon de Reya’s chair of dispute resolution Hugo Plowman discusses mentors, management switching off

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law announces partner promotion and new hires amid a record year for enquiries

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis wills and probate team extends reach with two appointments

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll