13 London Road,
London, SE1 6JZ
020 7928 0276
info@lisaslaw.co.uk

News and Insights

 

We have recently been successful in the appeal of an application for our client to join his EU national partner under the EUSS (EU Settlement Scheme). There has been lots of coverage recently about this topic following a decision by the Court of Appeal in Celik vs Secretary of State for the Home Department which ruled that those who were living with an EU partner before Brexit must have held an EU permit to apply now under the EUSS scheme.

 

However, in this case, the partner had not come to the UK yet, so we managed to successfully argue that no residence permit was needed to show relationship. We are delighted to secure this result for our client and wish him and his partner well for the future.

 

Keep reading to learn more about this case.

 

What was the background of the case?

 

Our client first instructed us to apply for entry clearance under the EU Settlement Scheme to live together with his partner in the UK in 2022. The client commenced a relationship with his partner who is an EU national in 2016 and they lived together in Venezuela as students. The partner has been living in the UK with pre-settled status since 2019 but was then stuck in the UK until 2021 because of the travel restrictions during the pandemic.

 

In 2019, they approached a Venezuelan Notary public solicitor who compiled an agreement confirming their civil partnership. They then made an application; however, the Home Office refused the client’s application on the basis that the Home Office didn’t recognize the civil partnership and therefore was not satisfied that they had a durable relationship for over 2 years.

 

The couple were left with the option of applying for a spouse visa. A route which is within the immigration rules but is extremely expensive with Home Office and Immigration Health Surcharge fees.

 

They approached us to submit a spouse application. As they had been in a genuine relationship for over 6 years, we felt there was merits to submit another EUSS application as we were of the view that the Home Office failed to give their case sufficient consideration. We submitted a new application under the EUSS scheme.

 

What are the normal requirements for EU Settlement Scheme cases?

 

Usually, to succeed in application as a partner under the EU Settlement Scheme, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of a durable relationship. This requires the applicant and the partner to have lived together for a minimum of 2 years. Usually, you require a residence document. However, this does not apply to EU national partners who are yet to enter the UK.

 

What did we do for the client?

 

Unsurprisingly, the Home Office refused our application with the refusal letter almost identical to the first refusal the Client received a year prior.

 

We appealed the decision so that the case could be considered by a First-tier tribunal judge.

 

What happened in the appeal hearing?

 

Our arguments were based on two grounds. The first is that the civil partnership agreement was valid and the second was that they had clearly been in a durable relationship since 2016.

 

Civil partnership

 

Since the SSHD didn’t recognise the submitted civil partner document as they had not been registered with a Venezuelan equivalent of a UK registrar, we argued about the legality of what the Home Office was requesting. Such processes do not exist in Venezuela. The declaration of the client’s civil partnership was declared by applicant and sponsor, that two witnesses attested to the relationship before the special notary, and the documents were then placed before a registrar and certified. Even though it has not been presented and certified by a public official. We argue there was no greater length our client could go through to show that they are in a civil partnership.

 

Durable relationship since 2016

 

The Home Office argued that there was a lack of documentary evidence showing that they resided together since 2016. They expected utility bills etc. We provided a tenancy agreement, along with photographs of our client and his partner every year since 2016. We argued the ease of registering for utilities in the UK cannot be seen as the standard. Venezuelan housing typically has all bills included and the owner of the property usually pays for them. We argued that when looking at the evidence as a whole, it is clear that on the balance of probabilities our client was in a durable relationship. We also argued that a competent decision maker would arrive at that conclusion.

 

Conclusion

 

The Judge agreed with both of our arguments. He believed that there was a civil partnership and that they had been in a relationship since 2016. The judge gave the decision the same day, which is not a typical occurrence in tribunal hearings.

 

Our client and his partner are delighted. They came to us defeated with no option but to apply for a spouse visa which would have caused severe financial hardship to them. Together, we have been able to obtain EU Pre-Settlement status for our client.

 

This case shows the importance of not giving up following an immigration refusal. If you believe that the refusal was wrong, then this should be fought as you can see from this case.

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

We are delighted to announce that legal advisor, Paul Cheuk, has been admitted to the Roll of Solicitors and has therefore qualified as a Solicitor. Paul has taken up the role of Litigation Solicitor at the firm with immediate effect.

 

Paul joined the firm in February 2022 as a Paralegal, following previous work experience at an SRA-regulated law firm based in Hong Kong.  Paul has proven himself to be a dedicated and hardworking Litigation Paralegal who has been successfully assisting his clients in resolving their legal issues, promoting the firm, performing to a high standard, and supporting his Litigation colleagues. At the same time he has continued to work hard on his SQE studies and exams.

 

Qualifying as a solicitor is a huge milestone in a lawyer’s career and we congratulate Paul for his fantastic achievement.  We all look forward to working with Paul for many years to come.

 

 

How does one become a solicitor?

 

The journey towards qualifying as a solicitor in England and Wales is a long one which requires several stages of training. This takes approximately 6 years of studying and training overall.

 

These stages include the following:

 

  • Any degree or equivalent level 6 qualification (or a comparable overseas qualification)
  • Passing both stages of the Solicitors Qualifying Examinations (SQE)
  • Two years’ full time (or equivalent) work experience
  • Passing a final character and suitability test

 

In addition, the level 7 trailblazer solicitor apprenticeship also offers a work-based way of qualifying.

 

The character and suitability test is held by the SRA. If someone does not meet the character and suitability requirements of the SRA then they will not be admitted as a Solicitor. Some of the reasons for failing this may include cautions or criminal convictions.

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

 

iPhone version.

Android version.

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

If you are currently going, or ever have gone through a through a divorce, you will know it’s a very stressful time for all involved. From finding a lawyer, to negotiating between the two parties, arranging financial settlements, and even child custody issues, the divorce process can be a headache, and the costs can quickly escalate.

 

In order to make the divorce process easier, the UK officially launched an online divorce service in May 2018. As a result, you can start the divorce process at home with the click of a button. In addition, the introduction of “no-fault divorce” in 2022 has made divorce even faster. You can learn more about no fault divorce here.

 

Many people now believe that divorcing couples can get divorced on their own by simply filling out a form online without hiring legal guidance. However, what you need to understand is that even if you can file for online divorce and obtaining a final order of divorce, there is a difference between this and a “financial order”. A final order of divorce will not affect your financial arrangements. That is, a couple may successfully divorce online but still have unresolved financial claims. These unresolved issues may create new problems for you for years, or even decades to come.

 

family law banner

 

With the popularity of online divorce, more and more divorce service companies have emerged. They claim to provide clients with a service that can replace professional lawyers, but charge lower prices and have proven to be popular among some divorced couples. However, a small saving now can lead to a significant increase in costs later.

 

The BBC recently reported that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) receives complaints and claims every year relating to these online divorce service companies. Many people complain about the lack of quality of these companies. They all claim that the divorce process is simple and provide misleading information so that divorced couples have no idea what help they can get and what they need to pay.

 

First, let’s take a look – is online divorce legal and safe?

 

In the UK, it is not only legal to get a divorce online, it is also a relatively safe and simple way. However, it is important to note that the divorce will still proceed through the courts and need to be approved by a judge. However, you can complete a divorce document (D8 Divorce Application Form) online yourself and submit it to the Divorce Court or through the UK Government’s online system.

 

How to apply for divorce online?

 

If you want to start divorce proceedings online, you can apply for divorce through the UK Government website (www.Gov.uk). Official UK Government guidance outlining the process for applying for an online divorce will help you through the process.

 

Before starting your application, you will need to prepare the following documents and information:

 

  • You and your ex-spouse’s full names and addresses. This is required so that the court can send a copy of the divorce petition to your ex-partner.
  • Your original marriage certificate or a certified copy thereof. Please note that if your marriage certificate is not in English, you will need to provide a certified translation.
  • If you changed your name after separating from your partner, please provide proof of any name changes. This can be evidenced by your marriage certificate or name change deed.

 

In addition, you will need to pay court fees of £593, which include all necessary administrative costs and the cost of processing the divorce application. When you file for divorce online, you need to pay before you can file. Some financial aid is available to cover the costs of people who have been receiving government benefits, such as Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance, General Credit and Pensions Credit.

 

Your eligibility for financial aid will be based on your total income, including any savings. Generally speaking, anyone under 61 who receives a government benefit and has less than £3,000 in savings is eligible for expense reimbursement.

 

 

Limitations of Internet Divorce

 

 

 

There is no doubt that filing for divorce online can save you time and money, especially expensive legal fees. If both parties agree to a divorce, it can also help to maintain a cordial relationship with each other. However, you need to be aware that online divorce also has some limitations.

 

First, financial problems cannot be solved automatically

 

When a couple divorces, you need to obtain a divorce final order as well as a financial final order, which sets out the financial agreement of the divorcing parties. The online divorce process does not include a final financial agreement, and if financial arrangements are not addressed at the time of divorce, financial issues between you will remain unresolved. Either party may make a financial claim at any time after the Decree Absolute is issued and until remarriage. Depending on how the divorce papers are filled out, a claim can sometimes even be filed after a remarriage; even 25 years after the original divorce if the case was successfully filed.

 

Second, the pension issue

 

There are a number of important considerations when dealing with pensions during a divorce, including how to draft divorce documents to ensure you retain your right to make a financial claim, whether there will be a delay in applying for a decree absolute to complete the divorce and the implications of remarriage. Getting it wrong means you could lose a very valuable, and sometimes the most valuable, pension asset in your marriage.

 

Third, there is no lawyer to ask questions and get advice from

 

Before you are ready to apply, you need to prepare a series of paperwork. If you don’t have an solicitor to help, sometimes things like careless omission of documents can happen. As mentioned above, online divorce still has to go through the court process and needs to be approved by a judge. So, if any problems arise during your divorce, you will not have a lawyer to help resolve the issues, and ultimately, your divorce will be delayed.

 

 

Be wary of divorce service companies that flatter to deceive! 

 

In recent years, although online applications have become more and more popular among divorced couples, due to the disadvantages mentioned above, divorced couples often hesitate over whether to apply by themselves or spend money to hire a lawyer.

 

Some companies have taken a fancy to the business opportunities and launched “affordable” online divorce services. These companies claim that they have professional legal representatives who can provide a comprehensive DIY divorce guidance, divorce faster than traditional law firms, and most importantly, their fees are relatively cheap. They usually take on the paperwork preparation part, saving divorcing couples time to prepare materials. In addition, they can also provide advice if the divorcing couple has some legal issues and help follow up on court situations.

 

While it all sounds great, many of these service providers are unregulated and do not have qualified family lawyers on their teams to provide tailored advice to divorced couples, ultimately complicating the divorce process .

 

Firms offering these services are now set to be investigated by the CMA, as well as those providing will writing and pre-paid probate plans. If these firms have breached consumer law, then the CMA can take enforcement action by obtaining a court order.

 

In addition, the service quality of these companies can often be very poor. They have been found to provide wrong forms to the government and courts, enter wrong information, etc. Some consumers have also been duped, in some cases by the firms luring them with “extremely low” consulting fees without telling them that the costs would escalate significantly later.

 

Always consult a family lawyer

 

 

Whether you apply online or not, hiring a family lawyer to handle a divorce has never been compulsory. For some couples, if your marital situation is not complicated, you can go through the divorce process online without a lawyer. However, even if you do not hire a lawyer to assist you through the process, we recommend that you contact a family lawyer before commencing the process or before obtaining a final Decree Absolute for advice on the relevant financial distribution.

 

It is especially important to hire a family law solicitor to assist with the entire divorce process if your divorce involves children, family businesses, complex financial arrangements, overseas property, and situations where the parties cannot agree.

 

As the outcome of each case will depend on the facts, a rough 50/50 split of funds may not be the right outcome and careful consideration will need to be given to how the children’s financial needs will be met and whether this is necessary. For example, whether there be a clean break or ongoing maintenance, and whether there should be a pension sharing order. A solicitor will also make the correct calculations for this.

 

Crucially, once fair settlement terms are reached, solicitors draft the terms of the settlement as a consent order and submit it to the court for judicial approval. Only then will these terms be binding and enforceable. All in all, although divorce is becoming increasingly simpler, it is still important for both parties to take independent legal advice so that each party’s financial situation is properly considered, documented and protected.

 

If you require assistance, please contact Lisa’s Law Solicitors today. Our family lawyers can provide you with advice and assist you with your divorce.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

If you hold a visa, and you have worked at least 16 hours per week in the health and care sector for a period of 6 months, you are entitled to an Immigration Health Surcharge refund.

Copy of Namecard for article - Mahfuz in English

If you have any dependents, then you would be entitled to a refund of their IHS fees too. As of June 2025, the IHS currently costs £1035 per adult per year, while the cost for a child or student is £776.

 

How do I meet the requirements?

 

You will meet the requirements if you:

 

1. Hold a visa that entitles you to work (skilled worker, student, dependent, spouse, etc)

2. You have worked an average of 16 hours per week for a full 6 months in the health and care sector.

3. You have worked continuously for at least 6 months on or after 31st March 2020.

4. Are employed by an employer who is a recognised health or care provider.

 

How do I get the refund?

In order to get the Immigration Health Surcharge Refund, you will need to provide the following information.

 

1. National Insurance Number

2. Immigration Health Surcharge number

3. Employers’ details

4. Payslips

 

So, if you are here in the UK on a spouse visa or student visa and have been working part time in the health and care sector, you will be entitled to a refund.

Refunds will be given reflecting 6-month periods. Should your application be successful, then you should receive the refund within 6 weeks.

Contact us today for more information.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

After an OFSTED inspector was dismissed for briefly touching a pupil’s head to wipe away some rain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the dismissal was unfair due to a lack of disciplinary guidance and/or training. Compensation for unfair dismissal will be awarded at a later date.

 

The case (Hewston v OFSTED) highlights how important it is for employers to have set disciplinary guidance as well as training on when what conduct may be deemed gross misconduct in their workplaces, as well as when it may result in summary dismissal. As such conducts will have severe consequences, employees are entitled to be made fully aware of them so to comply with employers’ policies and procedures.

 

Keep reading to find out why the Employment Appeal Tribunal repudiated the decision made by the employment tribunal, and to learn more about why employers should have clear disciplinary rules and training to avoid complications further down the line.

 

Background

 

The case originates with an OFSTED inspector, Mr Hewston, who was visiting a school for an inspection. Mr Hewston, the claimant had worked as an OFSTED Inspector for 12 years and had an unblemished career up until that point.

 

After a group of children came back inside from the rain, the claimant, Mr Hewston, wiped some rain that was dripping down a child’s head and lightly brushed the rain off the top of the child’s shoulder. A teacher who spotted the incident then raised concerns that the behaviour by the inspector was inappropriate.

 

A report that was filed said that as well as one teacher feeling it was inappropriate, the student looked uncomfortable and embarrassed and completed an incident form due to the fact it happened without permission. Following a disciplinary process, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.

 

This decision came despite the respondent (OFSTED) accepting that Mr Hewston had not intended to harm the pupil and that it did not give rise to any safeguarding risks. It was also noted that the claimant had a clean disciplinary record over his 12 years of service.

 

OFSTED had not provided training to staff on what constituted as inappropriate touching, nor did they have disciplinary rules in place which specifically defined what inappropriate touching consisted of.  Prior to the dismissal of the claimant, he was not provided with the complaint of either the student or the school.

 

The dismissal of the claimant led to him filing a claim to the Employment Tribunal for unfair and wrongful dismissal. Mr Hewston stated that he did not believe he had acted unprofessionally, instead stating that “brushing rain from the forehead was professional in  the sense that it was caring”. However, both of the claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.

 

The claimant then appealed in relation to both outcomes. His claim was supported by his trade union, UNISON, who had severe concerns about the implications of the case for their members.

 

Decision

 

The decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the employment tribunal had made several serious errors in relation to both substantive and procedural unfairness.

 

In particular, the tribunal erred when it came to failing to adequately considering the fact that the claimant had not been forewarned that his behaviour in the form of physical contact was tantamount to dismissal from his position.  This forewarning could have come in the form of training or a written policy indicating that physical contact of this sort was not acceptable.

 

The tribunal also made a mistake by failing to recognise that it was a mistake not to provide the claimant with three documents: the text of the school’s complaint, the text of the child’s statement, and an email recording the view of the Local Authority Designated Officer. All three documents were relied upon by the dismissing officer, but only the school’s complaint was provided to Mr Hewston at the appeal stage. According to the EAT, this was enough to render the dismissal procedurally unfair.

 

Finally, the tribunal also failed to take into account whether the respondent had considered the long and unblemished service record of the claimant. The fact that Mr Hewston had relied on this during the disciplinary process means that this represents an oversight by the tribunal itself.

 

The EAT substituted its own judgment for that of the Employment Tribunal’s concluding that if the tribunal had properly directed itself on the law, it would also have found the claimant was unfairly dismissed.

 

Our thoughts

 

This case is a reminder of the importance of following a robust disciplinary process for each misconduct allegation. Employers should not retrospectively enforce self-defined standards or impose disciplinary action without first making employees aware of what the consequences of misconduct are, particularly in this case, where the consequences for the misconduct was dismissal of the employee.

 

With this in mind, the case highlights the need for OFSTED to make clear when the use of touch is inappropriate. It should have provided training to its inspectors or set out clear disciplinary rules which would have made the claimant aware of his responsibilities around the use of touch. These were sorely lacking for an organisation whose inspectors come into contact with children on a regular basis.

 

Nevertheless, employees working with children should be mindful of the consequences of unwarranted and non-consensual physical contact. For teachers and other staff employed by schools, their employer will usually have policies which make it clear whether the use of touch is appropriate. In situations where this is not obvious, employees should err on the side of caution.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

The Illegal Migration Act is a major piece of legislation which forms a key centrepiece of the UK government’s policy platform. The purpose of this Act is to prevent and deter illegal migration; in particular those by unsafe and illegal routes.

 

The government have stated that their aims are to both stop illegal boat crossings and to clear the asylum backlog by the end of 2023. Despite this, the asylum backlog reached record levels by the end of July 2023 with 175,000 individuals waiting for a decision.

 

Keep reading to learn more about the illegal migration act and what it means for UK immigration law.

 

What are the key changes?

 

To achieve their aims, this Act makes a few key changes to the current system.

 

1. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of people who enter the UK illegally.

 

2. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to declare certain protection claims and human rights claims inadmissible if they meet the conditions for removal.

 

3. It prevents people who meets the conditions for removal from being given leave to enter or remain, settling or obtaining citizenship in the UK.

 

Let’s take a look at the remainder of the Act in greater detail.

 

The duty to make arrangements for removal of an ineligible person – section 2 of the Act

 

 

This section places a responsibility on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the UK if the person meets all four of the following conditions:

 

1. The person requires leave to enter but enters the UK without leave to enter or with leave to enter that was obtained by illegal means such as deception, is in breach of a deportation order, or requires entry clearance but enter the UK without a valid entry clearance.

 

2. The person entered the UK under the above circumstances on or after 20 July 2023.

 

3. The person did not come to the UK directly from a country in which the person’s life and liberty were threatened.

 

4. The person requires leave to enter or remain in the UK but it expires, curtails or is cancelled and the person no longer has a valid leave.

 

This means this not only affects asylum seekers, but anyone who met all four of the criteria (ineligible person).

 

Unaccompanied children and power of the Secretary of State – section 4 of the Act

 

This section provides that the Secretary of State is not required to make arrangements for removal when the person is an unaccompanied child.

 

The power to remove an unaccompanied child may be only exercised in limited circumstances such as:

 

  • Where the child is removed to reunite him with his parent.
  • Where the child is to be removed to a safe country which is a country of which the child is a national or in which the child has obtained a passport
  • Where the child has not made a protection claim or a human rights claim and the person is to be removed to a country of which the child is a national, a country in which the child has obtained a passport or a country in which the child embarked for the UK.
  • Circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State (discretion of the Secretary of State)

 

Disregard of certain claims and applications – section 5 of the Act

 

The duty in section 2 (make arrangements for removal of a person) applies to a person who meets the four conditions irrespective of whether the person makes a protection claim, a human rights claim, claims to be a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking or makes an application for judicial review in relation to their removal under this Act.

 

A human rights claims relating to a person’s removal will be admissible but such claims will be considered following the removal to the third country concerned and any judicial review related will also be considered while the claimant is out of country.

 

Electronic devices – Section 15 and Schedule 2 of the Act

 

This confers powers on immigration officers to search, seize and retain electronic devices from persons liable to be detained under this Act. They have powers to access and use information stored on these devices.

 

Leave to enter and remain, entry clearance, electronic travel authorisation, settlement and British citizenship in the UK – section 30 to 35 of the Act

 

These sections provide for a permanent ban on an ineligible person who arrives on or after 7 March 2023 (not 20 July 2023) from getting leave, settlement or British citizenship unless it would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. The ineligible person has to have met all four of the conditions above.

 

Legal proceedings – section 38 to 53

 

These sections provide that persons subject to removal will have a limited time in which that they can bring a claim based on a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm arising from their removal or a claim that they do not meet the removal conditions in section 2.

 

Interim remedies section 54 to 55 of the Act

 

These sections provide that all legal challenges to the removal of a person do not prevent or suspend the removal.

 

Our thoughts

 

We believe that the above changes are going to be impracticable. Many people who cross the border will not be able to claim asylum and the UK does not presently have a country that they can return the migrants too, leaving many with an uncertain status. No doubt this will lead to an even bigger backlog than is presently the case.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

 

We have recently been successful in representing a client who has been living in the UK for more than 20 years in their application for leave to remain on human rights grounds. This is despite the fact that the client had very little evidence to support their application.

 

Keep reading to find out how we helped our client obtain leave to remain.

 

Background

 

Our client originally entered the UK in 1999 on a student visa. She did not apply for any leave after her student visa expired in 2000.

 

In 2022, she applied for leave on human rights grounds. She provided little evidence in her application of her residence in the UK. We advised the client that in these circumstances we would want a number of witnesses to support her application. As per our advice, she relied heavily on witness statements.

 

Her application was refused by the Home Office because she had not provided sufficient evidence for every year to show that she had lived in the UK for 20 continuous years. She also could not show that there would be significant obstacles to her integration in returning to her home country. Furthermore, the Home Office believed there were no exceptional circumstances. Overall, there was a complete lack of documentation in the case.

 

Despite having little evidence, we advised the client that she should appeal and that all seven of her witnesses should attend the court to give evidence in support of her continuous residence in the UK.

 

Accordingly, we proceeded with an appeal against the refusal of the decision.

 

Legal framework

 

The law recognises that a person is considered to have built a private life that is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights if they have lived in the UK for at least 20 years.

 

The relevant framework is Immigration Rules 276ADE  which states:

 

The requirements to be met by an applicant for leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK are that at the date of application, the applicant:

 

  • does not fall for refusal under any of the grounds in Section S-LTR 1.1 to S-LTR 2.2. and S-LTR.3.1. to S-LTR.4.5. in Appendix FM; and
  • has made a valid application for leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK; and
  • has lived continuously in the UK for at least 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment)

 

Appeal Decision

 

Generally, the Home Office requires the applicant to provide a lot of evidence to prove their 20-year continuous residence such as receipts, utility bills, tenancy agreement, official letters etc.

 

We asked the client why she did not have these documents. She explained that she had spent most of her time looking after her grandchildren over the past 23 years and socialising with her family. She did not register for any utilities as these were taken care of by her children. She explained she did not ever require medical treatment and therefore there were no GP records.

 

In light of this, we believed that her grandchildren’s evidence would be considered of great importance at the appeal hearing as she had helped raise them from children to adults. We advised our client that the grandchildren should provide evidence in person for the appeal and explain what care their grandmother/our client had given throughout the years to them. The Tribunal gave significant weight to the grandchildren’s evidence. The client had also socialised with her other relatives regularly. These relatives gave evidence as witnesses to prove that the applicant had lived in the UK for 20 continuous years.

 

We also included photographs in our bundle of each year our client was in the UK. Although there were no date stamps in the photo, we argued that as the years progressed, it can be seen that not only is the client getting older, but the children have become teenagers, and then adults. We provided in-depth details of the photos, such as where the photo was taken, who was in the photo, and whether they were witnesses. The court gave this evidence significant weight.

 

We received the decision today confirming that she was granted leave to remain in the UK. The client and her witnesses were all ecstatic. The client can now live with her family without fear of removal, and we wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

By Yang Peng

 

On 28 July 2023, The Administrative Court allowed a Pakistani student’s claim for judicial review of a decision by the defendant Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to cancel his leave to enter as a student. The court decided that the claimant was denied the opportunity to comment on allegations of false English language qualifications.

 

The judicial review related to alleged deception on the part of the claimant as to the authenticity of tests he had taken for proficiency in English required for the claimant to study at the university he was attending.

 

In September 2022, the claimant was granted leave to enter the UK by the Secretary of State for a three-year university course, backed by English proficiency tests and an Oxford International Education Group (OIEG) credibility interview. However, following three interviews conducted by the Heathrow Border Force desk officers upon Hazeem’s arrival to the UK, a notice was served pursuant to s120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 advising that entry was refused.

 

This decision has caused a huge amount of controversy and outrage. Many were eagerly awaiting the decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), where the Court made a judgement as to whether the Secretary of State had adopted an unfair procedure.

 

Keep reading to learn more about the decision made by the Administrative Court.

 

R (on the application of Hammad Tazeem) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD)

 

 

This case concerned whether the Secretary of State had adopted an unfair procedure.

 

The claimant, relying on R (on the application of Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] 4 All ER 998 (Balajigari), submitted that inadequate notice had been given to him about the Secretary of State’s real concerns prior to the decision, and that, as a consequence, he had been deprived of the opportunity to face the allegations made against him in the notice. He argued that a provisional ‘minded to’ decision, with reasons, should have been made, to see whether the claimant could overcome the concerns.

 

The court held the following in relation to some of the arguments presented by claimants:

 

  • Despite the facts in Balajigari being different to the facts of the present case, it did not follow that the principle enunciated by the court was any less applicable. Where something as important as a decision to cancel leave to enter was being contemplated on the assumption of falsified documentation, procedural fairness required that a very clear allegation to that effect was put. It was not enough for a passenger to be left to infer that that was the case.

 

  • The claimant should have been given an opportunity to explain the apparent discrepancy between how he presented himself and what the documentation appeared to verify. The claimant had been deprived of any opportunity for explanation by the procedure adopted by the Secretary of State, and that rendered the decision unlawful.

 

The above is a summary of the court’s judgement on claimant’s ground.

 

The decision means that when a person is notified of an important decisions, SSHD should very clearly state the allegations as procedural justice requires. It was not enough for the individual to be left to infer that this is the case, and an opportunity should be given for him to explain.

 

Our comments

 

The findings in R (on the application of Hammad Tazeem) v SSHD shows that the Secretary of State adopted an unfair procedure after denying Tazeem leave to enter in which they didn’t provide clear allegations. The Home Secretary also failed to balance fairness with swift decision-making. This has far-reaching implications for individuals facing future allegations.

 

The case demonstrates that people should have the chance to explain and address allegations. A preliminary ‘minded to’ decision, with explanations, should be considered to assess if concerns can be resolved.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

It gives us great pleasure to welcome Lok Lo to Lisa’s Law Solicitors. Lok joins the conveyancing team and has shown a great aptitude for the role since joining the firm last month.

 

In terms of her educational background, Lok holds a LLB degree from UEA and completed a Legal Practice Course at The University of Law.

 

Lok is also an animal lover! When she is not working, Lok is probably snuggling with her cats, Holstein and Chater!

 

Lok is multilingual through her fluency in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

An employment tribunal has ruled that an employee who refused to install a work app on her personal phone was unfairly dismissed. The installation of the app would have left the journalist unable to separate her work life and her home life, something she resisted against by refusing to have the app installed.

 

Depending on an employee’s employment status, different rules apply regarding whether a dismissal can be considered unfair. As an employee of a company, you must have worked for your employer for at least two years.

 

Furthermore, according to ACAS, it may also be unfair dismissal if the following apply:

 

  • there was no fair reason for the dismissal
  • the reason was not enough to justify dismissing them
  • the employer did not follow a fair procedure

 

 

While it was initially thought that the claimant in this case was a self-employed freelancer, it later turned out that she was an employee of the company. Keep reading to learn more about this case and the lessons that can be learned when it comes to unfair dismissal for employers and employees alike.

 

Background

 

The claimant, Razan Alsnih, worked as an Online News Editor for the respondent, Al Quds Al-Arabi Publishing & Advertising, an Arabic newspaper which considers itself similar in style to The Guardian. The company asked the claimant to download an app on her personal phone after it became impossible for them to personally review every article before publication, given they were publishing at least 100 articles per day. They also had concerns that she was duplicating articles which had been published by colleagues either the previous day or shortly beforehand.

 

As a result, the company introduced an app called Viber which enabled them to track what articles were being published as well as to avoid replication of them. While this was not initially mandatory, the respondent made it mandatory from November 2019, 2 years after it had been first introduced.

 

The claimant resisted against the idea of having the app installed on her personal mobile phone. She claimed that the notifications were disruptive and intrusive on her personal life. She asked to be provided with a work phone but this was rejected. She was informed that she could mute notifications, however she did not see this as acceptable as it would flash up on her screen and interrupt her calls and messages between friends and family.

 

Alternatively, she was told that she could buy her own work phone. The company would not buy her one as she was deemed to be a freelancer. The claimant continued to refuse to install the app on her phone, leading to the respondent blocking her from their system. This was blamed on the claimant’s failure to use Viber.

 

The claimant was dismissed by the company in February 2020 after the claimant raised a grievance alleging bullying, harassment and race discrimination by the Editor in Chief Ms Aloul, who was the claimant’s supervisor.

 

The claimant then brought claims for breach of contract, unlawful deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay. In this article, we will be focusing on the claim for unfair dismissal only.

 

Decision

 

The employment tribunal decided that the claimant was dismissed due to her refusal to download the Viber app on her phone.

 

Her dismissal was deemed procedurally unfair, given that no investigation took place prior to the final decision regarding the claimant’s dismissal.

 

But what was the legal basis for why the dismissal was deemed unfair? The test as to whether something can be classed as unfair dismissal is laid out in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

 

The relevant case law for testing whether a dismissal can be deemed reasonable can be found in British Home Stores v Burchell (1978), which has three stages:

 

  • did the respondents genuinely believe the claimant was guilty of the alleged misconduct?

 

The tribunal found that yes, the respondent did.

 

  • did they hold that belief on reasonable grounds?

 

The Tribunal found that the belief was not held on reasonable grounds, as the employer did not conduct a thorough investigation, as well as what the claimant was saying and why. They failed to consider adequately the interference the installation of Viber could have on the Claimant’s private life and alternative solutions.

 

  • did they carry out a proper and adequate investigation?

 

The tribunal found that the respondent did not carry out a proper and adequate investigation. Nor did they take disciplinary action against the claimant prior to dismissing her. While the claimant knew that her employer wanted her to use Viber, it was never made clear to her that her job was on the line if she refused to use it. However, the respondent claimed that there was no need for an investigation because the nature of the alleged misconduct was never in question.

 

Due to not meeting the requirements for the above, the Tribunal held that the respondent failed the Burchdell test used for unfair dismissal cases.

 

While the claimant wished for reinstatement, the Tribunal held that this was not possible due to the breakdown in relations between the employee and her supervisor, Ms Aloul. The claimant was awarded £20,000 for the unfair dismissal, as well as an uplift of 25% for the employer’s failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance.

 

Further, the tribunal also awarded the claimant with £12,000 for breach of contract, unlawful deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay.

 

Our thoughts

 

This case provides a number of lessons and reminders when it comes to an employer’s relationship with their employee.

 

Firstly, employers should be well aware of the employment status of their employees. In this case, while both the employer and employee believed that the claimant was freelance, they were in fact an employee. The employer in this case may have acted differently when it came to their dismissal if they had known Alsinh was an employee.

 

Finally, employers should also learn the lesson of being flexible towards their employers. The employer in this instance could have made a number of adjustments instead of forcing the claimant to download the Viber app on her phone. Possible solutions could have included offering the employee a work phone or installing the app on her work laptop. If the claimant continued to refuse to use the app in such a scenario, the respondent may have had a better case for fair dismissal providing they followed the correct procedure.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open 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/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

author avatar
lisaslaw@web

Have a question? Our friendly and experienced team are here to help.

Subscribe to our newsletter

We post weekly articles covering a variety of topics, including immigration, property, and more, so subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates. 

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar

Untitled(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.