header-logo header-logo

23 July 2021
Issue: 7942 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 23 July 2021

Asylum

R (on the application of Mahmud) v Upper Tribunal and another [2021] EWCA Civ 1004, [2021] All ER (D) 40 (Jul)

In the context of ‘Test of English for International Communication’ (TOEIC) litigation, the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court refusing him permission to apply for judicial review of a decision the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT), refusing him permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), would be dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, among other things, there was no arguable case, which had a reasonable prospect of success, of showing that the decision made by the UT had been wrong. TOEIC litigation was very fact-specific and the FTT had made a specific decision on the particular facts which could not sensibly be challenged.


Compensation

A and another v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and another [2021] UKSC 27, [2021] All ER (D) 33 (Jul)

Excluding the appellant victims of human trafficking from compensation under the 2012 iteration

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
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll