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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll