header-logo header-logo

29 October 2025
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Compensation
printer mail-detail

Windrush reforms to allow for compensation in advance

Victims of the Windrush scandal who request a review will be able to receive up to 75% of their compensation award in advance, the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced last week

Priority will be given to those aged 75 years and above or with serious health conditions. Compensation will take account of lost pension contributions, and immigration fees will be reimbursed.

Mahmood said: ‘It is unacceptable that many victims are still waiting for compensation all these years later.’

The scandal, caused by the Home Office destroying documentation, emerged in 2017. About £116m has been paid across 3,501 claims.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll