Landmark High Court Decision for Migrants on Section 3c Leave

In a ground-breaking ruling, the High Court has delivered a significant judgment that impacts thousands of migrants in the UK. The case, R (Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London) v SSHD [2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin), challenges the Home Office’s failure to provide proof of immigration status to individuals with leave to remain under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971.

Having Section 3C leave under the Immigration Act 1971 means that if you submit an application to extend your stay in the UK before your visa expires, you will not be treated as an overstayer while you wait for a decision. However, to date there has never been any documentation issued to those with Section 3C leave.

Fundamentally, this judgment has far-reaching implications for migrants, employers, and the digital transformation of immigration documents.

A Victory for Migrants

The High Court found that the Home Secretary had acted unreasonably (Wednesbury unreasonable) by not providing digital proof of immigration status to individuals under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971.

The practical implications of this decision are substantial. Migrants with leave to remain under section 3C will now be entitled to receive digital confirmation of their immigration status. This means easier access to ‘e-Visas,’ which can be quickly and conveniently verified by employers, landlords, and other entities. This change addresses significant delays and complications that migrants previously faced when proving their right to work or rent property.

The Court’s Findings

The court’s ruling addressed four main grounds of challenge:

Failure to Provide Documentary Proof: The court rejected the argument that the Home Secretary had frustrated statutory objectives by not issuing proof of status, as it was never the statute’s purpose to provide such documents.

Irrationality: The court found that it was irrational not to provide digital proof of status, acknowledging that while there may be reasons not to issue hard copy documents, there is no justification for not providing digital proof.

Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED): The court held that the duty to have ‘due regard’ to equality was procedural and not outcome-focused, finding that the Home Secretary had shown sufficient regard in this context.

Welfare of Children: The court concluded that the Home Secretary had failed to consider the welfare of children adequately, as lack of status proof could negatively impact children involved in immigration applications.

Our comments

The case highlighted the delays and difficulties faced by migrants due to the lack of proof of their immigration status. One of the claimants shared personal hardships, explaining how her employment was disrupted on two occasions because her right to work was questioned during the period she was under section 3C leave, causing her to miss several weeks of work.

This issue affects hundreds of thousands of migrants who, without proper documentation, are vulnerable. This policy can lead to denial of work, housing, and access to services. Evidence revealed that migrants often spend over a year under section 3C leave, exacerbating these issues.

This decision not only affirms the rights of migrants under section 3C but also pressures the Home Office to expedite the digitisation of Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) and other status documents. Failure to implement these changes swiftly could lead to further legal challenges.

The High Court’s ruling marks a pivotal step toward ensuring that migrants have reliable and timely proof of their status, enhancing their ability to work, live, and integrate into UK society without unnecessary obstacles.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

A Guide to Section 21 Notice: No-Fault Evictions in the UK

In the UK, landlords generally need to evict a tenant by using either a Section 21 notice, Section 8 notice, or both.

If a tenant has breached the terms of the tenancy, the landlord can use the Section 8 notice. Otherwise, the Section 21 notice (also known as a no-fault eviction) is generally required to evict without fault.

Section 8 is usually simple and straightforward. For this article, we will focus on the Section 21 notice of no-fault eviction.

Situations where you can use a Section 21 notice to evict a tenant include:

1. At the end of the fixed term of the rental contract, if you have a written contract.

2. In the absence of a fixed end date for the duration of the lease, this is also known as a “fixed-term” lease.

Before issuing a Section 21 notice, the landlord must provide the following information to the tenant:

1. Energy Performance Certificate in relation to the property.

2. A guide to ‘How to Rent’ from the UK government.

3. If the property has natural gas installed, an up-to-date natural gas safety certificate is required.

What protections do tenants have when it comes to Section 21 notices?

Tenants have certain rights and protections before their landlord can issue a Section 21 notice. The landlord can’t legally use a Section 21 notice to evict the tenant if:

1. The lease contract started less than 4 months ago or the fixed term has not expired, unless the contract contains a clause that allows for early termination of the lease.

2. The property is classified as a multi-use residential (HMO) but does not have an HMO license issued by the local government.

3. The lease commenced after April 2007, but the landlord did not put the tenant’s deposit into a security deposit protection scheme.

4. For leases commencing after October 2015, the landlord did not use Form 6a or a letter containing the same information.

5. The local government has issued an improvement notice to the property in the past 6 months.

6. The local government has issued a notice in the last 6 months stating that emergency repairs are to be made to the property.

7. The landlord has not returned illegal fees or deposits.

As long as one of the situations we just described happens, the landlord cannot use the Section 21 notice to evict the tenant.

How long does it take for a landlord who meets all the conditions to use Section 21 to evict a tenant? How much notice is required, and what if the tenant insists on not leaving?

First of all, the length of the notice period depends on the nature of the breach of the terms of the lease. Generally, the notice period is at least two months, but if you have a fixed-term rental contract, the notice period must be the same as the lease period.

If the tenant refuses to leave, the landlord can apply to the court for a compulsory possession order.

In deciding whether to grant mandatory grounds for possession, the court will take into account different circumstances. For example, if the landlord needs to take possession of the house because it was once used as a primary residence, or now plans to use it as a primary residence, then this reason is usually accepted.

There are other reasons, such as if the property is subject to a mortgage, or the lease is not more than 8 months and was previously a holiday let. Keep in mind, however, that the court will also consider circumstances at its discretion, such as the tenant being in rental arrears or destruction of the property, which may be grounds for granting possession.

The new Labour government will abolish Section 21 with immediate effect?

In their 2024 manifesto, Labour pledged to immediately abolish Section 21 eviction powers. However, due to the Renters Reform Bill being dropped in the run-up to the election, the new Labour government will need to start again with primary legislation. This could be a straightforward bill focused solely on repealing Section 21 or part of a broader Renters Reform Bill 2.0 with additional changes.

The new legislation would need to pass through both houses of parliament, receive Royal Assent, and then undergo an implementation and transition period before taking effect. It’s expected that Section 21 notices served before the new legislation’s enactment would likely remain valid, following standard transitional arrangements for existing tenancies, as outlined in Labour’s amendments to the Renters Reform Bill.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

How Will the UK Election 2024 Shape Immigration? | Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem Policies

With the UK general election 2024 fast approaching, here at Lisa’s Law, we would like to talk about the different immigration policies proposed by the main parties running for office.

So, let’s start with the Conservatives. In their manifesto, they have proposed several measures aimed at curbing migration. These include:

1. Health Checks and insurance – this would require migrants to undergo a health check before coming to the UK and either increase the immigration health surcharge or require migrants to purchase health insurance.

2. Another proposal is to increase the visa fees and eliminate the student discount available on the immigration health surcharge.

3. Another proposal is implementing a cap on the number of work and family visas issued.

4. The Conservatives have also proposed adjusting the income requirements for skilled worker and family applications automatically in line with inflation. We all know that the requirement has increased considerably this year already.

To tackle illegal migration, the Conservatives state they will continue with their Rwanda Plan to deport illegal migrants from July.

Our thoughts on the Conservatives’ manifesto are that it presents a tough stance on not only illegal migration but also legal migration, with stricter immigration controls. It may be tough for those on low or modest incomes to afford the increased fees.

Now let’s move on to Labours.

Labour emphasises the need for controlled and managed borders. They are proposing creating a new Border Security Command Unit, staffed with hundreds of specialists tasked to stop and arrest criminal gangs involved in smuggling. They also plan to negotiate a new security agreement with the EU so that they can share real-time intelligence.

Labour also states that they will reform the UK asylum system by hiring additional caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications, end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation, and fast-track removals to safe countries where possible.

Labour has also confirmed that they will scrap the Rwanda plans immediately.

Our thoughts on the plans proposed by Labour are that it appears to be a pragmatic proposal, by committing to scrap the costly Rwanda scheme in favour of direct action against smuggler gangs, prioritising asylum backlogs, and proposing a new system backed with significant investment moving forward.

However, the success of this proposal will come down to whether these plans can be implemented effectively.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats.

The Lib Dems appear to have offered the most promises with a range of significant changes to immigration and asylum policies.

They have said that they would reverse the minimum income requirement threshold that was increased this year for family visas, reduce fees for children applying for British citizenship, and lift the ban on care workers being able to bring their partners and children.

The Lib Dems have also stated they would prevent public agencies from sharing information with the Home Office, repeal the right to rent scheme, limit immigration detention time to 28 days, and allow asylum seekers that have been waiting for a decision for more than 3 months to work.

They also state that they will fund community-sponsored projects to increase social cohesion among refugees.

Our thoughts on the plans proposed by the Liberal Democrats are that it appears to be a more progressive and humanitarian approach compared to the plans proposed by Labour and the Conservatives. The proposals are bold and may face significant challenges when it comes to implementing these policies.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Court Upholds Decision on TOEIC Exam Fraud

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, has rejected an appeal brought by the appellant against a ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This ruling had previously dismissed the appellant’s challenge to a decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The Secretary of State had curtailed the appellant’s permission to stay in the UK, alleging that he had cheated on a TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) exam, which he had used in a prior application.

After losing his leave to remain, the appellant applied for asylum and later sought leave to stay in the UK based on his family and private life. These applications were refused by the Secretary of State, mainly due to suitability concerns. Both the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed his appeals, leading to a further appeal on procedural grounds.

Key Issues and Decisions

The primary issue was whether the hearing at the FTT was unfair because the judge allegedly stepped out of her neutral role and “descended into the arena.” The appellant contended that the judge’s conduct made the hearing procedurally unfair. However, the UT disagreed, concluding that the hearing was fair and that all evidence had been considered properly.

Court’s Analysis

Judges are advised to avoid excessive intervention during witness testimonies to maintain fairness. Each case must be evaluated based on its unique context and facts. The fairness of a hearing is judged objectively, considering that transcripts do not capture nuances like tone and manner of questioning.

In this case, the FTT’s questioned conduct occurred after the counsel’s examination of each witness. The judge allowed the counsel to ask further questions and then posed her own questions, which were extensive but not hostile. These questions were relevant to the evidence and central issues of the case.

The court found that the FTT’s behaviour during the hearing was within acceptable limits. The judge’s questions did not indicate bias or affect the fairness of the hearing. It was important to ask these questions to address any concerns, ensuring that the appellant and his witnesses had a fair chance to respond.

Ultimately, the UT’s decision that the hearing before the FTT was fair was upheld, and the appeal relating to TOEIC exam fraud was rightly dismissed.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Understanding Leasehold vs Freehold: What Every Buyer Should Know

When purchasing property in the UK, one of the most critical distinctions to understand is whether you are buying a leasehold or freehold property. Each comes with its own set of rights, responsibilities, and implications, which can significantly affect your ownership experience. This article delves into the advantages and disadvantages of leasehold vs freehold properties, helping you make an informed decision in your property purchase.

What is Freehold?

Owning a freehold property means you own the building and the land it stands on outright, with no time limit on ownership. This type of ownership is often considered the most straightforward and desirable because it provides full control over the property and its use.

Advantages of Freehold

1. Complete Ownership:

You own the property and the land it stands on, giving you complete control over it.

2. No Ground Rent or Service Charges:

Unlike leasehold properties, there are no additional annual charges such as ground rent or service charges.

3. Greater Flexibility:

As the freeholder, you can make changes or renovations to the property (subject to planning permissions) without needing consent from a landlord.

4. Long-Term Security:

There is no risk of the lease running out, providing long-term security for the owner and future generations.

What is Leasehold?

In contrast, owning a leasehold property means you own the building but not the land it stands on. The land is owned by a freeholder (landlord), and you have the right to use the property for a specified number of years, as outlined in the lease agreement. Leaseholds are commonly found in flats and apartments, although houses can also be leasehold.

Advantages of Leasehold

1. Lower Purchase Price:

Leasehold properties often come with a lower purchase price compared to freehold properties, making them more accessible to buyers.

2. Maintenance Responsibility:

The freeholder typically manages and maintains the common areas of the building, which can be advantageous for leaseholders who prefer not to handle these responsibilities themselves.

Disadvantages of Leasehold

1. Ground Rent and Service Charges:

Leaseholders are usually required to pay annual ground rent and service charges to the freeholder, which can increase over time.

2. Limited Ownership Period:

Leasehold ownership is time-limited. When the lease expires, ownership of the property reverts to the freeholder unless the lease is extended.

3. Consent for Changes:

Leaseholders often need permission from the freeholder to make significant alterations to the property, which can be restrictive.

4. Lease Extensions:

Extending a lease can be a costly and complex process, especially if the remaining lease term is short.

Key Considerations for Buyers

When deciding between leasehold and freehold, potential buyers should consider several factors:

1. Lease Term:

If purchasing a leasehold property, it’s crucial to check the remaining term of the lease. A short lease (typically less than 80 years) can significantly affect the property’s value and make it difficult to secure a mortgage.

2. Costs:

Evaluate all costs associated with the property, including ground rent, service charges, and potential costs for lease extensions or enfranchisement (buying the freehold).

3. Future Plans:

Consider your long-term plans for the property. If you plan to stay in the property for many years or pass it down to heirs, a freehold might be more suitable.

4. Rights and Responsibilities:

Understand your rights and responsibilities as a leaseholder or freeholder. This includes knowing what you can and cannot do with the property and what obligations you have towards maintenance and repairs.

Conclusion

Understanding the differences between leasehold and freehold properties is essential for making an informed decision in your property purchase. Freehold ownership offers complete control and long-term security, while leasehold ownership, though often more affordable initially, comes with additional responsibilities and potential restrictions.

By carefully considering the terms of ownership, associated costs, and your long-term plans, you can choose the property type that best suits your needs and lifestyle. Lisa’s Law is experienced in dealing with all types of conveyancing, offering professional legal advice at a competitive rate. If you have any enquiries, please get in touch.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

High Court Rejects Legal Aid Challenge for Windrush Compensation Scheme

In a significant ruling of the case of R (Oji) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework [2024] EWHC 1281 (Admin)., the High Court has dismissed a legal challenge seeking to secure legal aid for individuals applying for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. This decision has sparked a mix of reactions from various stakeholders, ranging from disappointment among advocacy groups to approval from governmental bodies.

Background

The Windrush Compensation Scheme was established in April 2019 in response to the Windrush scandal, where many Commonwealth citizens, who had lived and worked in the UK for decades, were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and, in at least 83 cases, wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office. The scheme aims to provide financial redress for the suffering and losses experienced by the Windrush generation and their families.

The Legal Aid Challenge

The legal challenge was spearheaded by several advocacy organizations and law firms specializing in immigration and human rights. They argued that the complexity of the compensation process necessitated legal aid to ensure that applicants could navigate the system effectively and receive the compensation they deserved. The claimants contended that many of those affected by the Windrush scandal faced significant barriers, including language difficulties, mental health issues, and a lack of trust in the authorities, which would hinder their ability to apply for compensation without professional legal assistance.

The High Court’s Ruling

In the judicial review, the claimant, born in Nigeria in 1985, faced challenges due to the hostile environment policy, leading to difficulties in employment and accessing homelessness assistance to escape domestic violence. Seeking compensation under the Windrush scheme, the claimant’s application for legal aid was refused, leading to the challenge.

The court dismissed the challenge on two grounds. Firstly, it found that neither Article 6 nor Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged in the compensation scheme application. Secondly, it concluded that the discretion available under section 10(3)(b) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 did not need to be exercised, as a decision had already been made under section 10(3)(a).

Reactions

Government Response

The Home Office welcomed the High Court’s decision. A spokesperson reiterated the department’s commitment to righting the wrongs experienced by the Windrush generation and emphasized the resources allocated to assist claimants. The spokesperson stated, “We are pleased with the court’s decision, which recognizes the extensive support provided through the Windrush Compensation Scheme. We remain dedicated to ensuring that all those affected receive the compensation they are entitled to.”

Advocacy Groups

Conversely, advocacy groups and legal representatives expressed deep disappointment with the ruling. They argued that the decision failed to appreciate the real-world challenges faced by many Windrush victims. Jacqueline McKenzie, a prominent lawyer and advocate for the Windrush generation, commented, “This ruling is a setback for justice. The Windrush Compensation Scheme, though well-intentioned, is inherently complex, and many of those affected are vulnerable and in dire need of legal assistance to ensure they receive fair compensation.”

Impact on Claimants

For many individuals affected by the Windrush scandal, the ruling represents another hurdle in their quest for justice. Some have expressed concerns that without legal aid, they might struggle to complete the application process and secure the compensation they need to rebuild their lives.

Looking Ahead

While the High Court’s decision is definitive, it has highlighted the ongoing challenges within the Windrush Compensation Scheme. Advocacy groups have vowed to continue their efforts to support claimants and to campaign for further improvements to the scheme. The Home Office has also indicated that it will continue to review and refine the process to better meet the needs of the Windrush generation.

In the aftermath of this ruling, the focus will remain on ensuring that the scheme fulfils its promise to deliver justice and compensation to those who have suffered so profoundly. The possibility of an appeal remains uncertain. However, the case underscores the ongoing challenges with the Windrush compensation scheme and the persistent need for legal aid, as highlighted by Age UK’s assertion that a debt is owed to the Windrush generation, which the UK government has yet to fully address.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Rentcharges under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 received royal assent on 24 May 2024. While most discussion about the 2024 Act relates to the ban on the sale of new leasehold houses and the lease extensions, this article aims to talk about new requirements and limitations in relation to rentcharges under the 2024 Act, which will come into force on 24 July 2024.

What is a rentcharge?

As defined in section 1 of the Rentcharges Act 1977, a rentcharge means an annual or other periodic sum charged on or issuing out of land, that is not rent reserved by a lease and is not payable by way of interest.

Rentcharges are usually paid by freeholders to a third party who has no other interest in the property. Most rentcharges originated in the late 19th and early 20th century when landowners sold their land for development but would retain a legal interest in the land and charge an annual fee.

Current law relating to rentcharges

Under the Rentcharges Act 1977, no new rentcharges can be created since 22 August 1977 except for:

estate rentcharges;
rentcharges created in relation to certain family trust arrangements
rentcharges created under statutory acts in connection with the execution of works or commutation of such works obligations and
finally, rentcharges created by or in accordance with a court order.

The 1977 Act also provides historic rentcharges to be extinguished on the later of 22 July 2037 or the expiry of 60 years from the first payment date of the rentcharge. However, rentcharges that can be created under the 1977 Act remain enforceable after 2037. For example, estate rentcharge can still apply to certain new build developments where the freehold homeowners are obliged to pay the estate rentcharge for maintaining or repairing communal areas.

If the homeowner fails to pay the rentcharge or any part of it for 40 days after it is due, statutory remedies are available to the rentcharge owner under section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925:

Section 121(3) provides that the rentcharge owner has right to enter into possession of the property, and take the income from it until all arrears together with all costs and expenses are fully paid;

Section 121(4) provides that the rentcharge owner may grant a lease of the property to a trustee who must try to raise enough to pay the arrears together with the costs and expenses arising from non-payment of rentcharges.

The rentcharge owner does not need to make any legal demand for unpaid rentcharges before exercising these remedies. This creates problems due to the unforeseen consequence if the homeowner fails to comply with the rentcharge provisions. Mortgage lenders are reluctant to lend against properties subject to estate rentcharges unless the rentcharge deed includes a provision requiring the rentcharge owner to give a minimum 40 days’ notice to the lender before taking the enforcement action or excludes the statutory remedies under section 121 of the 1925 Act.

Changes under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

Under section 113 of the 2024 Act, the rentcharge owner cannot exercise their enforcement under section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 unless the rentcharge owner has served the homeowner with a 30 days’ notice demanding payment of the arrears and such notice complies with the requirements set out in the provision. For instance, the demand for payment must set out the following details:

the name of the rent owner;
the address of the rent owner;
the amount of the rentcharge arrears;
how that amount has been calculated; and
details of how to pay that amount.

Moreover, the rentcharge owner no longer has any of remedies for recovering and compelling payment of unpaid rentcharge on and after 27 November 2023. The rights to take possession / to grant a lease have been removed.

Nonetheless, the above changes only apply to “regulated” rentcharges which could not be created in accordance with section 2 of the Rentcharges Act 1977 i.e. historic rentcharges. The changes do not extend to estate rentcharges. The homeowner subject to estate rentcharge and the mortgage lender still have to deal with draconian rights available to the rentcharge owner. Therefore, the homeowner should still be aware of how rentcharge operates and the consequences if they fail to comply with rentcharge provisions.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Standish v Standish: Court of Appeal Clarifies Asset Division in High-Value Divorce

A recent Court of Appeal case (Standish v Standish) resulted in an unequal division of property on divorce. The family’s total wealth was £132 million, yet the judge awarded the wife only £25 million after a 15-year marriage. Notably, the parties did not have a prenuptial agreement, and during the marriage, the husband transferred £77 million to the wife as part of a tax planning scheme. The case has significant implications for the sharing principle of asset division by providing clear guidance on this matter, particularly around the concept of non-matrimonial property.

What was the background?

The case involved a husband and wife who married in 2005 and had two children together. After moving to England from Australia, they purchased an estate in Hampshire. The husband had acquired the vast majority of his wealth prior to the marriage and held the majority of his wealth in his sole name until 2017. He retired in 2007, two years after marrying his wife.

In 2017, as part of a plan to settle the money into trusts to protect the family from inheritance tax, the husband put roughly £77m into the name of his wife. However, prior to the setting up of any trust, the wife commenced divorce proceedings.

At the time the case went to trial, the wife said that this money had become her separate property. Despite this, the wife said that she would be willing to share the money, as well as everything else, equally with her husband. Nevertheless, it was argued by the husband that the money should be returned to him as part of his non-matrimonial property.

In his decision, the judge found that while there had been matrimonialisation of the transferred money, the asset division should be unequally favoured toward the husband due to his previous wealth. He made the same decision for the farm business, whose shares had been partly transferred to the wife for tax efficiency.

On the other hand, the judge found that farmland was non-matrimonial property, and should not be included in the sharing principle. However, he found that the sharing principle did apply to the Hampshire estate, which was worth £21m.

Overall, this meant that the value of the transferred assets, which included the farm business and matrimonial home, was divided 60/40 in favour of the husband, with the farmland also left with the husband. This meant that, overall, £87m (66%) of the assets went to the husband, while £45m (34%) went to the wife.

The wife argued for half of the assets based on the importance of title, autonomy, as well as the absence of a nuptial agreement. However, the husband’s appeal involved him seeking a reduction to £25m for the awarding of assets to the wife.

Why did the Court of Appeal decide that the judge was incorrect in his decision? Let’s take a look.

Court of Appeal

After being referred to the Court of Appeal, the Lord Justice made the decision that the trial judge was wrong to have held that the transferred funds had been matrimonialised. This decision was made on the basis that the mere title had been transferred.

The Court of Appeal found that this transfer of title was an irrelevant consideration. Instead, the source of the asset was the critical factor. In practical terms, this means that he held that the fact that the 2017 Assets were non-matrimonial were not diminished purely because they were transferred to the wife. Furthermore, Lord Justice Moylan found that the way this had been applied was an extension of the concept of matrimonialisation itself.

Lord Justice Moyaln went on to say that “The sharing principle is founded or based on each party, in accordance with the objectives of fairness, equality and non-discrimination, being entitled to an equal share of their matrimonial property, namely the “fruits of the partnership” or the wealth built up by the parties’ endeavours during the marriage.”

In other words, the Court of Appeal held that the sharing principle for the 2017 assets should only have been applied to the portion between the marriage and the husband’s retirement in 2007. The way in which the trial judge had applied the sharing principle therefore resulted in an unjustified division of the wealth in favour of the wife.

By applying the sharing principle in what the Court of Appeal held was the correct way, this would have resulted in the wife receiving £25m in wealth instead of the £45m which the trial judge concluded.

The decision over whether the £25m would meet the wife’s needs was referred back to the trial judge to assess.

Our thoughts

There is a common understanding that matrimonial assets should be shared equally, regardless of the parties’ respective roles in the family, whether as a homemaker or a moneymaker. However, as demonstrated in this case, the sources of funds are clearly relevant to capital distribution. Not all assets held by the parties at the time of divorce are subject to equal division. To achieve overall fairness, equality, and non-discrimination, only the “fruits of the partnership”—the wealth accumulated through the parties’ efforts during the marriage—are subject to equal sharing. Non-matrimonial property, such as pre-marital wealth and inheritance, is excluded from sharing, although it may be relevant to meet needs if required.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

High Court Declares Electronic Monitoring Unlawful

The High Court has ruled that the Home Secretary’s use of electronic monitoring of four claimants was unlawful, a decision which has broader implications for future similar cases. However, the court upheld the Home Secretary’s right to use data from electronic monitoring to make decisions on leave applications for individuals who have been tagged. This ruling comes from the case ADL & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 994 (Admin).

Background

On June 15, 2022, the Home Office initiated a pilot scheme for electronic monitoring which targeted individuals who arrived in the UK via perilous journeys, such as those arriving by small boats. The pilot scheme concluded on December 15, 2023.

Quarterly reviews of the use of electronic monitoring on individuals were mandated, but a backlog was noted by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in July 2022. By February 2023, the backlog had reached 1,912 cases, decreased to 348 by May 2023, but rose again to 970 by October 2023. The backlog was attributed to staff shortages, delays in implementing a new IT system, and a guidance error requiring higher executive officer authorization for maintaining electronic monitoring.

The Claimants

Four claimants were involved. These included:

ADL: Monitored from July 14, 2022, to October 31, 2022.
Fabio Dos Reis: An EU national monitored from March 7, 2022, to October 27, 2022, later granted settled status.
BNE: Monitored from May 26, 2022, to November 7, 2022.
PER: Monitored from July 19, 2022, to the hearing date, with a switch to a handheld device on October 26, 2023.

Three claimants were deportation cases; one was not. One had been granted bail by the First-tier Tribunal, and the others by the Home Secretary. Representations made on behalf of ADL before monitoring were ignored, and quarterly reviews were delayed in three cases.

Judicial Review

The review challenged the imposition, review, and data retention from electronic monitoring. During the proceedings, the Information Commissioner issued an enforcement notice for data breaches, and the Upper Tribunal ruled on a related case.

The High Court addressed several issues:

1. Decision-Making and Reasons for Monitoring: The Home Secretary failed to consider whether imposing monitoring was impractical or violated human rights (ADL and PER). The failure to provide reasons affected BNE and ADL.

2. Quarterly Reviews: The court refused to amend grounds on the lack of quarterly reviews.

3. Article 8 Rights: The failure to provide reasons did not make monitoring unlawful, but not considering representations or practicality did for two claimants.

4. Necessity and Proportionality: Monitoring was deemed unnecessary beyond a certain period for ADL and BNE.

5. Retention of Trail Data: The Home Secretary was not required to make individual decisions on retaining trail data.

6. Use of Monitoring Data: The use of data for leave applications was lawful.

7. Proportionality of Data Retention: Retaining data was deemed unlawful for Dos Reis and ADL due to specific circumstances.

Our thoughts

The court’s decision on electronic monitoring’s lawfulness provides critical guidance, though concerns remain about using potentially inaccurate monitoring data in leave applications. Practitioners should review the Nelson decision and consider recommended steps for clients in similar situations.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

10 things that should be at the front of first time buyers’ minds

Here at Lisa’s Law, we deal with many different types of cases from both the residential property and commercial property sectors. However, a particularly important demographic that our solicitors find it rewarding to work with are first time buyers.

While it is particularly difficult for young people to buy their own home now, due to astronomical house prices, lack of housebuilding, and stagnant wages, the dream for young people of owning their own home remains paramount for many.

We have compiled a list of key points that first time buyers should be considering when they make the choice to purchase a home of their own.

Why is the property on the market?

This can be an important question to think about from a few different angles. Are there any faults with the property which may make the current owners want to move away? Be sure to ask questions about how the house functions, from its plumbing to its phone signal reception and everything in between. Is it in an area with good transport links? What are the sellers like, and what is their current situation? If they want to sell the property quickly then it may be a good chance to put in a lower price offer, you never know!

Is it taking a long time to sell?

There can be many factors that influence the time it takes for a property to be sold, and just because a property has been on the market for a long time doesn’t always mean there is something wrong with it. On average, a property takes between 60 and 70 days from when it is put up for sale to when a buyer is secured – but this number tends to fluctuate year on year. If a property has been on the market for 6 months or more, it is likely that you can put in a lower offer and it will be considered. It is smart to ask if there have been previous offers on the property.

Know your budget

Most lenders will ask for proof of your income so that they can assess whether or not to give you a loan, as well as how much they will lend you. You will usually need a deposit of 10% of the properties value and then take out a mortgage to pay the rest.

Nevertheless, you may also be eligible for the mortgage guarantee scheme. This is an equity loan from the government which can reduce your deposit to five per cent. Another option is shared-ownership, where you buy a percentage of the property and rent the rest, usually from a housing association.

You must also think about stamp duty depending on the value of your property, as well as solicitors’ fees. These will easily add a few thousand pounds to your bill and can’t be added to your mortgage.

What’s the parking situation?

If you have a car and need to use it often then it is important to be aware of the parking situation before committing to a property. Do you need a parking permit? Does the property have its own dropped curb or driveway for you to use? This must be considered if you are someone who drives a lot.

Looking out for damages/cover ups

If the house generally doesn’t look like it has been refurbished for a while, keep an eye out for freshly painted walls. It may mean that the owners are trying to cover up some damage, so if you notice anything usual it’s best to ask why the work was done. At the same time, it’s also worth checking for damp. This can cause a major headache in any property, leading to both damage to your health and home.

If there is a basement, keep an eye out for water. If it’s been quite rainy in the days leading up to your viewing, and the basement looks dry, it’s good news. However, if it’s been dry, and the basement appears damp, you should ask what the issue is and figure out where the water is coming from.

Check the windows as well, as good windows can save you a lot of money in heating bills!

Think about what you already own!

You must take into consideration the size of the rooms in relation to the furniture that you own. It can be easy to misjudge the size of a room when it doesn’t have anything in it, so if you want to be completely certain that the property is big enough for your needs there is no harm in bringing a tape measure with you to the viewing, along with the measurements of your main furniture.

How old is the roof?

This is an often forgotten but very important question. Roofs are can be very expensive to replace and the building work is an absolute nightmare. Newer roofs have a life expectancy of only 15-20 years, depending on the materials. If the roof is flat be sure to check that it is all sealed properly to avoid any leaks in the future.

Check out the plumbing

Run the taps when you are looking in the bathrooms and kitchen, and see for yourself what the water pressure is like. Even check the shower too. Ask about the radiators and how old the boiler is. Older tanks are usually stored in the roof, so if that’s the case bear in mind that you will may have to replace it soon.

Assess the area

Is there a pub nearby that’s open late, meaning lots of noise? How close are schools, will they cause lots of traffic in the mornings when you are trying to get to work? Are you underneath a flight path? Is there a dump nearby that might cause an unpleasant smell?

These are all things that so many people find out AFTER they have already moved into the property. Don’t make the same mistake as them!

Does it feel like it could be your home?

If you do find a property that you really like, be sure to visit it more than once. Go there a few times, ideally with a couple of different people who may notice things you miss. Have viewings at different times of the day and really explore the surrounding area. Try to envision yourself living there for a long time; it’s a big commitment to buy a house and you have to be 100% sure that it is the right one for you.

That’s all for our article about 10 tips for first time buyers. Subscribe to our newsletter for more!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

News and Insights

A Victory for Migrants

The Court’s Findings

Our comments

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Situations where you can use a Section 21 notice to evict a tenant include:

Before issuing a Section 21 notice, the landlord must provide the following information to the tenant:

What protections do tenants have when it comes to Section 21 notices?

How long does it take for a landlord who meets all the conditions to use Section 21 to evict a tenant? How much notice is required, and what if the tenant insists on not leaving?

The new Labour government will abolish Section 21 with immediate effect?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Key Issues and Decisions

Court’s Analysis

What is Freehold?

Advantages of Freehold

What is Leasehold?

Advantages of Leasehold

Disadvantages of Leasehold

Key Considerations for Buyers

Conclusion

Background

The Legal Aid Challenge

The High Court’s Ruling

Reactions

Government Response

Advocacy Groups

Impact on Claimants

Looking Ahead

What is a rentcharge?

Current law relating to rentcharges

Changes under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

What was the background?

Court of Appeal

Our thoughts

Background

The Claimants

Judicial Review

Our thoughts

Why is the property on the market?

Is it taking a long time to sell?

Know your budget

What’s the parking situation?

Looking out for damages/cover ups

Think about what you already own!

How old is the roof?

Check out the plumbing

Assess the area

Does it feel like it could be your home?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar