header-logo header-logo

12 August 2016
Issue: 7711 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

Secretary of State for the Home Department v ZAT and others (United National High Commissioner for Refugees and AIRE Centre, intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 810, [2016] All ER (D) 22 (Aug)

The Court of Appeal held that the Upper Tribunal had erred in its approach to the test required to permit the processes and procedures of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 604/2013 (the Dublin III Regulation) to be bypassed because of the right to family life, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, at the initial procedural stages in the determination of which member state was responsible for processing an application for asylum.

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

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll