header-logo header-logo

25 March 2022
Issue: 7972 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 25 March 2022

Costs

R (on the application of Butt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (indemnity costs) [2022] UKUT 69 (IAC) All ER (D) 56 (Mar)

The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) considered an order for costs to determine, under the UT’s discretion pursuant to s 29(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the extent of costs to be awarded to the applicant national of Pakistan to be paid by the respondent Secretary of State for the Home Department. The applicant had applied for leave to enter the UK as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant and had been challenging an ongoing failure by the Secretary of State to issue a decision in respect of his entry clearance application. The Secretary of State had failed to comply with a consent order in the agreed time frame which had resulted in the applicant having to initiate further judicial review proceedings challenging the failure of the Secretary of State to return the applicant’s passport with entry clearance. The UT held

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
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