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

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
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
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
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
back-to-top-scroll