header-logo header-logo

10 February 2017
Issue: 7733 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of TN (Vietnam) and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2017] EWHC 59 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 90 (Jan)

The Administrative Court declared the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/560), ultra vires. It held that an application to quash or to set the appeal decision aside had to be made to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), and decisions which had been made by a tribunal with jurisdiction and which had not necessarily been unfair required more than the fact of the declaration to warrant their being set aside or quashed.

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
Britain’s new acknowledgement that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, and accompanying settlement-goods ban and sanctions, is significant but overdue, argue Danny Friedman KC and Victor Kattan in NLJ this week
New planning fee rises, wider trade union access rights and a service-by-email trap feature in Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
back-to-top-scroll