Solicitor fired by immigration advice business due to direct race discrimination

An employment tribunal has ruled that a solicitor was fired by an immigration advice business due to her race. With immigration lawyers often representing some of the most marginalised people in society, it might seem surprising to see a case involving direct race discrimination against an immigration solicitor emerge. However, this is what happened to Indian national, Mayuri Manjula, when she was dismissed.

Miss Manjula subsequently claimed that she was a victim of direct discrimination. This was based on her belief that a British employee would not have been treated the same way when handing in their notice.

So why did the employment tribunal find that Ms Manjula was fired due to her race? Let’s take a look at the background and facts of the case in more detail.

Background

Miss M Manjula v Immigration and Nationality Services Ltd and IANS Solicitors Ltd

Mayuri Manjula originally qualified as a solicitor in India before moving to the UK. Initially, she worked as a Business Development Manager for her employer, Immigration and Nationality Services Limited, owned by Ian Refugio. Prior to this, she self-funded her own qualification and admission as a solicitor in England. After being employed by the law firm IANS Solicitors Limited, also owned by Mr Refugio, her firm obtained a sponsor license which extended her visa.

Manjula had handed in her notice after being offered a role at KPMG, one of the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms. She was willing to work more than four weeks of her notice but was told to leave immediately by her employer, who cited a “breakdown in trust and confidence” for this decision.

During a meeting notifying the owner, Ian Refugio, that she would be resigning to work for another employer, Manjula claimed that Refugio responded angrily and banged on the table. She claimed that her employer said: “You plan to leave the employment? I extended your visa and now you plan to leave? What about the visa costs? You influenced me to pay for your visa and now you say you want to leave! I am disappointed that I trusted you!”

After being told that she must leave immediately, she repeatedly stated that she was required to give her four weeks of notice and expected to receive four weeks of payment in lieu of notice. However, she was dismissed by her employer.

What claims did Miss Manjula bring forward?

Manjula subsequently brought a number of claims as a litigant in person including the following:

Unfair dismissal
Wrongful dismissal
Unauthorised deductions from wages
Direct race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 Section 13
Failure to Provide a Statement of Particulars
Indirect Race Discrimination

When it came to the Claimant’s claim for direct race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal had to decide whether the Respondents treated the Claimant less favourably on the grounds of race. In particular, “as a non-British national migrant worker compared to British-national workers”. The claimant provided three comparators for the direct race discrimination claim. All three were non-migrant British National workers that had left the company.

The period the tribunal focused on was after 9^th March 2022 when Manjula notified her employer that she was resigning. It would also focus on the alleged dismissal of the Claimant later that day, a dismissal which was denied by the Respondents.

Let’s take a look at what the tribunal decided on each of these claims.

Judgement

All claims other than the one for indirect race discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The indirect race discrimination claimed failed due to being presented out of time.

The judge found that Mr Refugio had a habit of dismissing migrant employees without paying them their notices monies and/or wages owed. At the time of the hearing, which took place a year and a half after the claimant was dismissed from her employment, Ms Manjula had still not received the money she was owed. The money owed by her employer, IANS Group, totalled £7,930.29 overall.

When comparing the situation of Ms Manjula with that of her non-migrant comparators, it was found that the others had not been treated the same way. The closest comparator, Maryam Sufi, was also a Solicitor and was not treated in the same aggressive manner as the Claimant was when she resigned.

The tribunal found that the motivation for Mr Refugio becoming angry was that she had resigned after her employer had helped her remain in the UK over three years of employment. The behaviour by Mr Refugio in becoming angry and dismissing her may have been unconscious, but according to the tribunal it was motivated by race. It was therefore also discriminatory on the grounds of race.

Direct race discrimination

Following the summary of evidence which was gathered by the tribunal, it was found by the tribunal that this inferred that direct race discrimination of the Claimant had taken place. The burden of proof shifted to the Mr Refugio, who had to provide evidence that “amounted to a non-discriminatory reason for the treatment of the Claimant” on 9^th March 2022.

As the respondent failed to prove a non-discriminatory reason, the tribunal decided that the aggressive behaviour directed towards Ms Manjula that day, as well as her summary dismissal on that date amounted to direct race discrimination.

Unfair dismissal

Regarding the claim for unfair dismissal, the claimant had been continuously employed by the respondent for more than two years. Employees have the right to challenge a dismissal if they have been continuously employed by their employer for more than two years as per section 95 the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Tribunal found that following Ms Manjula’s resignation, the Respondent brought forward her date of termination, amounting to her summary dismissal. If an employer decides to summarily dismiss an employee during their period of notice, the employee will be considered to have been dismissed by their employer. Was this an example of an unfair dismissal?

Despite the respondents giving the reason for dismissal as misconduct, i.e. Manjula finding alternative employment, this was found not to have been a sufficient reason for the summary dismissal of the Claimant. The claim for wrongful and unfair dismissal therefore succeeded. The reason for this is that the Claimant was entitled to a four week notice period which she was not giving the opportunity to serve.

Our thoughts

This is a case which highlights the nuanced nature of discrimination law under the Equality Act 2010. While the dismissal could be regarded as more cut and dry in terms of being unfair and wrongful, on the face of it, one might not initially realise that the dismissal of the claimant was also an example of direct race discrimination. Indeed, Ms Manjula herself did not initially claim direct race discrimination.

However, the pattern of behaviour by the respondent in behaving differently towards non-migrant British workers who resigned, as well as his outburst and dismissal of the claimant following her resignation, were found to be an example of direct race discrimination. As discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 can be both conscious and unconscious, the tribunal held that the respondent’s reaction could be put down to direct race discrimination of an unconscious nature.

It is vital that employers have cle anti-discrimination policies which are kept up to date and which staff are informed of. The Equality Act (2010) makes it a requirement for employers to take steps to prevent discrimination. This helps to create a safe and inclusive workplace for staff.

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 [email protected].

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

Immigration health surcharge increase delayed – submit your application now

The Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) allows an individual coming to the UK to have full access to the National Health Service (NHS). It is an upfront cost paid when submitting a visa application, which allows the individual to access the NHS without any restriction.

The Government announced in October 2023 that the immigration health surcharge that is payable in visa applications is scheduled to increase by 66% on 16^th January 2024 by way of introducing the Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2023.

The increase was proposed to help cover the cost of the public sector as the costs have not increased for the past 3 years.

The main rate for per person will increase from £624 per year to £1035 per year. The discounted rates for children per child will increase from £470 per year to £776.

It has now been announced that the increase will not be taking place on 16^th January 2024 as expected. Although they have not given a definitive date, it has been confirmed it will be no earlier than 31 January 2024 at the earliest.

Act Now

If you are intending to come to the UK in the near future, then we would suggest that you apply for your visa now prior to the change taking place. This will allow you to benefit from the current charges. If you are intending to apply for an extension to your current visa, then you may wish to apply now.

Please note that as a general rule for most immigration applications, you are permitted to extend your visa 28 days before the expiry of your current visa. This means that should your visa be due to expire in February 2024, then you may be able to apply now.

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 [email protected].

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

Renting with Pets – do Landlords Have To Say Yes to Tenants?

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 27th October 2025. Its provisions on pets – under Sections 10 and 11 – came into force on 1st May 2026 as part of Phase 1 of implementation.

The Act effectively incorporates the core principles of the old Model Tenancy Agreement into statute, making them mandatory for all assured periodic tenancies in the private rented sector. So, can landlords still refuse pets? Yes, but only in limited, clearly defined circumstances.

Keep reading to find out how.

Tenants Have a Statutory Right to Request a Pet

For the first time, the right to ask to keep a pet is written into law. Tenants may make this request both at the start of a tenancy and during it. The request must be made in writing and must include a description of the pet they wish to keep.

Landlords Cannot Refuse Pets Outright

Landlords are no longer able to rely on a blanket “no pets” clause to refuse all requests without consideration. Every request must be assessed on its own merits, taking into account the suitability of the property and the tenant’s ability to care responsibly for the animal.

The 28-Day Response Rule

Once a tenant submits a written pet request, the landlord has 28 days to respond in writing. If the landlord needs more information — for example, the size or breed of the animal — they must ask within that period. Once the tenant provides further information, the landlord has either the remainder of the original 28 days or an additional 7 days — whichever is later — to give a final decision.

“If you do not respond within 28 days, [the tenant] will be able to apply to the court.” — GOV.UK guidance for landlords

Refusals Must Be Reasonable and in Writing

If a landlord does refuse a pet request, the refusal must be in writing and must explain the reason. Blanket or unexplained refusals will not suffice. Tenants have the right to challenge an unreasonable refusal, either by complaint to the landlord or by applying to the court.

Circumstances that are likely to make a refusal reasonable include:

The property is leasehold and the superior lease prohibits pets
The size or nature of the property makes the particular pet unsuitable
The property cannot be insured where pets are kept
The pet would be likely to cause nuisance to neighbours

It is not likely to be reasonable for landlords to refuse pets on the grounds that they dislike animals, have had bad experiences with pets in the past, or are concerned about the property’s appeal to future tenants.

Once Granted, Consent Cannot Be Withdrawn

If a landlord agrees to a pet, they cannot later change their mind about that pet. However, if a tenant wants to keep an additional or different pet, they must make a fresh request.

What Happened to Mandatory Pet Insurance?

Earlier drafts of the Renters’ Rights Act — and the preceding Renters (Reform) Bill — included a provision allowing landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance as a condition of granting consent. This was seen by many landlords as a practical compromise: it would protect them against the cost of pet-related damage while still enabling pets.

However, this provision was removed by a government amendment during the House of Lords report stage. The government’s position is that the standard tenancy deposit is sufficient to cover any pet-related damage. In rare cases where damage exceeds the deposit, landlords may seek to recover the additional amount through the courts.

This removal has proved controversial. Many landlord groups argue it weakens the practical case for allowing pets and may push some landlords to look for alternative grounds to refuse. However, the law is clear: landlords cannot refuse pets without reasonable, individually assessed grounds.

Before vs. After: At a Glance

Issue	Before 1 May 2026	From 1 May 2026
Blanket “no pets” clause	Legally enforceable	Cannot be used to refuse without consideration
Tenant right to request a pet	No statutory right — guidance only (MTA)	Statutory right under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
Landlord response deadline	28 days (MTA guidance only)	28 days — legally binding; court action available if missed
Requirement to give reasons for refusal	No legal requirement	Must refuse in writing with stated reasons
Mandatory pet insurance	Proposed in earlier drafts	Removed from the final Act — not permitted
Challenging an unreasonable refusal	Limited practical options	Formal right to challenge in court
Pet damage protection for landlords	Deposit (capped) and/or higher rent	Deposit (capped) — landlord can also pursue court for excess

The Process: How Does a Pet Request Work?

Tenant submits a written request, describing the pet they wish to keep. This can be done at any point during the tenancy.
Landlord has 28 days to respond. They may ask for additional information about the pet within this window.
If additional information is requested, the tenant provides it and the landlord then has either the remainder of the original 28 days or 7 extra days — whichever is later — to give a final decision.
If the landlord consents, the tenant may keep the pet. That consent cannot later be revoked for that specific animal.
If the landlord refuses, they must explain the reason in writing. The refusal must be reasonable.
If the tenant believes the refusal is unreasonable, they can raise a complaint or apply to the court to challenge the decision.

What This Means for Landlords

Landlords can still refuse pets — but only where they have a clear, reasonable, and documented justification. Blanket refusals and standardised “no pets” tenancy clauses will no longer protect them from challenge.

Practically speaking, landlords should:

Review their tenancy agreements to remove or update blanket pet prohibition clauses
Establish a clear internal process for handling and documenting pet requests
Check whether the property’s leasehold terms or insurance policy affect their ability to permit pets
Review their property insurance — while they cannot require tenants to take out pet insurance, landlords may wish to ensure their own policy provides adequate coverage for pet-related damage
Keep thorough written records of all requests, responses, and reasons given

It is also worth noting that the abolition of Section 21 “no-fault” evictions — also effective from 1 May 2026 — affects how landlords can respond if a tenant keeps an unauthorised pet. Eviction now requires a specific ground under Section 8, such as a breach of tenancy (Ground 12) or property deterioration (Grounds 13 or 15). Courts will consider whether eviction is a proportionate response.

What This Means for Tenants

Can landlords refuse pets when you ask? Yes, but not without good reason — and not without telling you why in writing. Tenants now have a meaningful legal right to request a pet, and a clear route to challenge any refusal they believe is unreasonable.

If a landlord refuses your request, ask for the reason in writing. If you believe the refusal is unreasonable, you may complain formally or apply to the court. Evidence of the request, the refusal, and the landlord’s reasoning will be important in any challenge.

Note that the statutory right applies during an established tenancy. If you are still negotiating a new tenancy agreement, the right has not yet been formally triggered — though unreasonable refusals to even discuss pets with prospective tenants could attract scrutiny under other provisions of the Act.

A Note on Assistance Animals

Assistance animals such as guide dogs, hearing dogs, and dogs trained to assist disabled people have always occupied a separate legal position. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits landlords from discriminating against disabled people, which includes refusing to permit a necessary assistance animal. This protection remains unchanged and is entirely independent of the new pet request framework.

Our Thoughts

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is a genuine and meaningful step forward for tenants who want to keep pets. For too long, blanket “no pets” clauses left responsible pet owners with very limited options – and with only 7% of landlords historically advertising pet-friendly properties, the market simply wasn’t working for a significant portion of renters.

The new law strikes a more sensible balance. Landlords retain the right to refuse where there is a genuine reason – and there will always be cases where a particular pet is unsuitable for a particular property. But the days of a landlord refusing without explanation, or relying on a boilerplate clause to avoid the question entirely, are over.

The removal of mandatory pet insurance from the final Act is a point of contention, and landlords’ concerns about damage are understandable. However, the deposit remains available for legitimate claims, and landlords can pursue tenants through the courts where damage exceeds it.

Our advice to tenants is to put any pet request in writing, be upfront about the type and size of animal, and keep records of all correspondence. If a refusal seems unreasonable, you now have real legal options to challenge it. And to landlords: a considered, documented approach to pet requests is not just good practice – it is now a legal requirement.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

Can the identities of Home Office caseworkers be redacted?

In general, a litigant in judicial review proceedings is not entitled to redact, on the ground of relevance, the identities of officials in such disclosure. This means that the Home Office should not redact the information about caseworkers in a judicial review. Routinely the names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service would be redacted in most claims of judicial review, with names of a large number of caseworkers being hidden. This leads to uncertainty about the approach to redaction rules.

Recently, the judgment of R (oao IAB & others) v SSHD reconfirmed the approach in relation to the redaction of the identities of officials in disclosed documents in the context of judicial review proceedings. Let’s analyse this case and the impact it has on whether the identities of Home Office caseworkers can be redacted.

Background

IAB is an interim judgment arising from judicial review proceedings challenging the Levelling Up Secretary’s decision to introduce regulations affecting asylum-seeker accommodation. If the regulations take effect, certain premises used by the SSHD (the SSHD) for asylum claimants will be exempt from housing regulations. This aims to increase available accommodation for asylum claimants and reduce reliance on hotels for the purpose.

The claimants in IAB challenged the SSHD’s policy regarding the regulations. In resisting the claim, the SSHD presented disclosure containing redacted documents, with an explanation for some redactions. Specifically, the SSHD stated that the names of junior officials were redacted based on relevance. The SSHD submitted that names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service fall outside the candour obligation and can be removed from all disclosable documents on grounds of relevance.

This could raise concerns related to transparency and the impact on public trust. This is because it could be argued that the routine redaction of caseworkers’ names, particularly those outside the Senior Civil Service, may hinder the public’s ability to fully understand the caseworkers involved in government actions.

In this background, the redaction of civil servants’ names emerged as a key issue in the court proceedings.

Judgement of R (oao IAB & others) v SSHD

In court, the judge deliberated on the permissibility of the SSHD routinely redacting names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service from documents disclosed in judicial review proceedings. The judge’s discussion is outlined below:

The judge emphasized the importance of the Duty of Candor in judicial review proceedings. According to the guiding principle in such proceedings, absent of good reason to the contrary, redaction on grounds of relevance alone ought to be confined to clear situations where the information redacted does not concern the decision under challenge. However, the names the SSHD sought to protect were not in this class, and those civil servants outside of the senior civil service did not enjoy any reasonable expectation of confidentiality. As such, the names of caseworkers should not routinely be redacted from disclosable documents.

In addition, the routine practice of redacting documents contradicts the purpose of ensuring public authorities provide clear reasoning for challenged decisions. The SSHD’s argument for widespread redaction was deemed impractical and raised concerns about transparency and public confidence.

In conclusion, the judge ordered that there was no sufficient reason, either from general considerations or the circumstances of the case, to warrant redaction of the names of caseworkers from disclosable documents.

The judge directed the SSHD to re-serve the disclosure without redactions.

Our thoughts

This judgment serves as a useful reminder that litigants in judicial review proceedings are not entitled to redact the identities of caseworkers in disclosed documents on the basis of relevance. However, the judgement does not solely apply to Home Office caseworkers. All defendants, including the central government, local authorities, and other public authorities, must follow this judgment and apply it when providing documents under the duty of candour.

For the public, it gives them the right to know who is handling cases and to hold individuals to account where necessary. When the public knows that cases are being handled by experienced and professional caseworkers, it reduces suspicion and mistrust about the fairness of the judicial process. All in all, this helps to create a fairer and more trustworthy legal environment.

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 [email protected].

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

Navigating the Asylum Process: A Comprehensive Guide

This article covers everything from what asylum is to the intricate steps of the application process and important details. Let’s dive into the complexities of seeking international protection and the path to asylum in the UK.

What is Asylum?

A person claims asylum when they are seeking international protection. The UK has an obligation to consider all claims made for asylum.

To be successful in your asylum claim, you must show that you are a refugee. A refugee is a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. You must also show that if you sought state protection then this would not be available to you, and that you cannot internally relocate to another part of your home country for your safety.

If you can show all of this, then you will be granted asylum and have leave as a refugee for a period of 5 years. During this time, you can work, study, receive benefits and bring family members to join you in the UK.

The Asylum Process

You must first claim asylum by calling the asylum intake unit. They will provide you with a reference number and will usually call you back within 2 weeks with a date for your screening interview.

During your screening interview, you will be asked basic details about yourself and basic details about why you wish to make an asylum claim. You will be given a Home Office reference number, a copy of your screening interview record and an ARC card.

Following your interview, you will be provided with documents to complete. This is the stage where we can come on record as your representative. We would advise and complete the forms for you, as well as provide in-depth details about your claim.

Approximately 6 months later your substantive interview will be set. This is also known as the main interview, where the Home Office will ask detailed questions about your claim. Interviews usually last 3 to 5 hours.

Once the interview is completed, you will be provided with a copy of the interview record and have 2 weeks to submit your final evidence and a decision will be made approximately within 6 months later.

If you are struggling financially and/or become homeless you can apply for asylum support. This means you will be provided with financial assistance and accommodation. You can apply for asylum support anytime during the asylum process.

Financial and housing support

You will usually get £47.39 per week for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need such as food, clothing, and toiletries. You will be given somewhere to live, and free National Health Service (NHS) healthcare, such as seeing a doctor or receiving hospital treatment. Your children will be allowed to attend school if they are aged 5 to 17. All state schools are free, and your children may be able to get free school meals.

How to register to your local GP

The procedure is the same as the other non-asylum seekers, the difference is that they will need to show their asylum seeker card (ARC) which will be given after the first asylum interview (screening interview).

Permission to work

The Immigration rules allow all asylum seekers to request permission to work in the UK if their asylum claim has been pending for a year or more.

Asylum decision

After your substantive interview, you will usually get a decision within 6 months. If you are granted asylum, then you will be given 5 years leave to remain as a refugee.

If you are refused, you will usually be given an in country right of appeal. This means that you must appeal within 14 days for your case to be considered by a judge.

You may be given an out of country right of appeal. This is when you are required to leave the UK and then appeal the decision within 28 days. This is also known as certification. This means that the Home Office are of the view that your case has no prospect of success.

It is of the utmost importance that you seek legal advice following your asylum decision. Contact us today and we would be happy to help.

Family reunification

If your asylum claim is successful, you are permitted to apply to bring your family to the UK under the family reunion rules.

Refused Asylum

If you have substantial new evidence that was not considered in your asylum, you can make further submissions which is known as a fresh claim.

Conclusion

As we conclude, we hope these articles provide a comprehensive understanding of the asylum process. If granted asylum, individuals receive five years of leave to remain as refugees. In case of refusal, appeal options are explored. Remember, seeking legal advice is crucial at every stage.

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 [email protected].

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

UK Government Lowers New Salary Thresholds!

The UK government announced earlier this month new salary thresholds for both Skilled Worker and Spouse visas. Starting next spring, individuals must earn at least £38,700 per year to secure a skilled worker visa or to bring a family member or partner from abroad to the UK.

However, the Home Office has adjusted its initial plan to swiftly raise the minimum salary requirement for British nationals bringing foreign family members to the UK, which had faced criticism. The threshold will now be raised to £29,000 instead of £38,700, starting in the spring of 2024.

The revised proposal, disclosed abruptly and without public attention in a parliamentary response, indicated that the threshold would be increased ‘gradually’ and would eventually reach £38,700. However, no specific timeline was provided for this increment.

The Home Office minister, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said, “In Spring 2024, we will raise the threshold to £29,000, which is the 25th percentile of earnings for jobs eligible for Skilled Worker visas, progressing to the 40th percentile (currently £34,500), and finally the 50th percentile (currently £38,700 and the level at which the general skilled worker threshold is set) in the final stage of implementation.”

The Government has also confirmed that the changes will only apply to new visa applicants and those already in the UK will only have to meet the current, much lower, income requirements.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on [email protected].

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

2023 – What have we achieved this year?

The end of the year is a time for reflection, and in doing so we are able to take a moment to recognise the progress achieved at Lisa’s Law in 2023. In the final piece this year, we review 2023 by highlighting some of the major achievements from our immigration, conveyancing and litigation teams respectively. But first, a few words from our Managing Director, Chuanli Ding.

I believe that 2023 has been another remarkable year for Lisa’s Law. We have not only achieved an overall growth of 30%, following a 52% growth last year, but also optimised our structure and made it more efficient and productive. This will lay down a solid foundation for our further expansion in 2024.

Immigration

Our Immigration team, led by the excellent Immigration Supervisor, Mahfuz Ahmed, has made excellent progress this year:

2023 has been a very busy year when it comes to immigration following an increase in migration to the UK compared with 2022. There have been a host of new changes introduced by the UK this year which have posed a host of new challenges. Thankfully, our immigration team has been able to carefully navigate these changes to ensure positive outcomes for our clients.

Our immigration team’s achievements over the past year have been numerous. This has seen us assist in over 1400 immigration matters overall, with a 61% growth in new matters compared with last year. Our team now numbers a total of 18 immigration specialists, a 20% increase compared with last year. Finally, we have also had an appeal success rate of 90%, helping those who have been refused by the Home Office to successfully exercise their right to appeal.

Some notable cases this year have included the following:

Obtained British citizenship by discretion for a child born outside the UK who is an exceptional sports player.
Success in obtaining skilled worker entry clearance for a client being sponsored by a business owned by a client’s siblings.
Successful in obtaining a visa based on 20 years residence despite the client having very little evidence.
Obtained permanent residence for a client who exceeded the maximum days allowed outside the country through the 10-year residence route.

Conveyancing

Our Conveyancing team have also seen impressive growth in the safe hands of our Head of Conveyancing, Elin Lee.

This year we have opened close to 1500 cases up until the end of October – a 10% growth in new matters overall. We have therefore achieved growth two years in a row, during what many would consider to be uncertain economic times. Our cases this year were made up of a roughly 70% residential and 30% commercial split, showing that while the majority were made up of residential cases, commercial conveyancing still played a vital role.

In terms of the breakdown for our residential conveyancing, residential new build cases made up approximately 10%. Meanwhile, we also helped many to realise their dreams of owning their own home, with first time buyers making up roughly 10% of cases.

For the commercial side of our conveyancing service, perhaps one of the major highlights of the year includes the purchase of several plots of land. We now have instructions to act for the developers in these plot sales.

Finally, as well as growth in the number of matters, our team has also grown over the past year. Our conveyancing team now totals 23 people, with further plans for expansion next year.

2023 was a challenging year for the property market given the hike in interest rates by the Bank of England. This environment has meant that we see the swift completion of every property transaction as not just our responsibility, but also our mission. Nevertheless, Lisa’s Law carefully vets each client to ensure there are no oversights or hidden issues.

Our meticulous, efficient, and responsible approach has positioned Lisa’s Law Solicitors as one of the designated law firms for many developers. With inflation continuing to ease over the past year, we can perhaps anticipate a interest rate cut by the Bank of England in 2024. This would be a positive development for those considering mortgage-based property purchases.

Litigation

Finally, our litigation team under Litigation Supervisor, Evveline Loh, has also had a very successful year, achieving superb growth.

The achievements of our team in 2023 are a testament to our Litigation Team’s ever-increasing prowess. From triumphant property possession victories to strategic settlements in director breach cases, our dedication and endeavour defines us. We have championed clients in diverse cases —be it against universities, Amazon, or even a high-stakes High Court judgment. Defining moments for the year have been cost-effective resolutions in party wall disputes and efficient Amazon fund releases.

With a knack for negotiation and a track record of success within the team, we have navigated complexities and secured favourable outcomes for clients. As the year closes, our Litigation Team stands as a beacon of legal excellence, safeguarding our clients’ interests with skill and determination. Cheers to a year of unwavering success!

Below are some of the outstanding highlights from this year for our litigation team.

1. Property Possession Success:

We have achieved success in possession cases, securing settlements with regained possession or winning with a 100% rent arrears judgment. In some instances, we have also recovered partial or full costs.

2. Director Breach of Duty Settlement:

Resolving a director’s breach of duty case, we settled for approximately £412k. Our client not only reclaimed the claimed amount but also regained ownership of the company’s property and trademark through a strategic settlement.

3. Developer’s Building Work Claim:

In a case against a developer’s building work, our client successfully obtained damages amounting to £26k, showcasing our commitment to recovering losses on behalf of our clients.

4. Negligence Claim against Universities:

Acting for students, we pursued negligence claims against renowned universities, ensuring our clients’ rights were protected and seeking justice for any wrongdoing.

5. Mortgage Possession Defence:

Defending mortgage possession cases, we successfully resisted possession orders for properties ranging from £1.2 million to £78 million, demonstrating our dedication to safeguarding our clients’ assets.

6. Employment Case Settlement:

Settling an employment case initiated by an employee seeking almost £140,000, we negotiated a favourable resolution, showcasing our expertise in employment law.

7. Trademark Dispute with Amazon:

Resolving a trademark dispute with Amazon, we issued a pre-action letter leading the opposing party to back off. Our client’s link was reinstated by Amazon within 24-48 hours, highlighting our efficient and strategic approach.

8. Amazon Fund Release:

Assisting a client whose funds were withheld by Amazon in 2020/2021, we successfully navigated the issue, writing to Amazon and securing the release of funds within one month.

9. Party Wall Dispute Resolution:

In a party wall dispute, where the client was initially prepared to spend £200,000 on legal fees, we successfully persuaded them to opt for mediation, showcasing our commitment to cost-effective resolutions.

10. High Court Judgment Success:

Securing a recent High Court judgment, our client successfully challenged a claimant’s late application for notice regarding the authenticity of our client’s documents. The judge commented on the parties’ failure to agree on realistic timetabling and witness statement compliance and cost order was made to reflect relevant parties’ failure.

11. Parcel Claim Settlement:

Successfully settling a claim involving 200 claimants over undelivered parcels due to the insolvency of a Chinese company, we negotiated amicable settlements and reduced our client’s overall liability, highlighting our effective dispute resolution skills.

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 [email protected].

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

Grounds for refusal under the UK immigration rules – what are they?

Within the immigration rules, part 9 relates to general grounds for refusal. If you are thinking of applying for either leave to remain or entry clearance in the UK, it is important to ensure that you avoid general grounds for refusal by meeting the suitability requirements set out in the UK immigration rules. Failure to do so could be disastrous for your prospects of staying in the UK.

This article will take a look at the suitability requirements set out in the UK immigration rules, looking at how you can meet the requirements and what can be done if you are refused under Part 9 of the immigration rules.

Keep reading to learn more and help you stay informed about reasons why you may be refused permission if you otherwise meet the criteria for a visa.

What types of applications do part 9 general grounds for refusal apply to?

It is worth pointing out that with a few exceptions, part 9 grounds for refusal apply to the vast majority of applications. Part 9 grounds for refusal do not apply to the applications made under the following to various degrees:

Appendix FM (in part)
Appendix Private Life (in part)
Appendix Armed Forces (in part)
Appendix EU (full)
Appendix EU (family permit)
Appendix S2 Healthcare Visitor (full)
Appendix Service Providers from Switzerland (full)
Appendix Settlement Protection (full)
Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation (full)
Part 11 – Asylum (in part)
Appendix Settlement Family Life (in part)
Appendix Adult Dependent Relative (in part)

Difference between discretionary and mandatory ground for refusal

There is a key difference between discretionary and mandatory grounds for refusal which determine the success of an application. Within the part 9 rules, each ground sets out whether the Home Office must or may refuse or cancel permission.

If they must be refused or cancelled permission, then this is a mandatory general ground for refusal. If they may be refused, this is a discretionary ground for refusal. With the latter, this means that it is up to the Home Office whether permission is refused or cancelled.

What are the general grounds for refusal?

Let’s now take a look at the various grounds for refusal under Section 2 of part 9 of the immigration rules. There are 8 main grounds for refusal which we will be giving a brief overview of today.

Ground 1 – Criminality

As a visa applicant, your permission to enter or stay in the UK must be refused if you have been:

Convicted of a criminal office, either in the UK or overseas, for which you have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more
Are a persistent offender who shows a ‘particular disregard’ for the law
Or, you have committed a criminal offence (s) which caused serious harm

These three reasons are mandatory grounds for refusal. Despite this, there are also discretionary grounds, meaning that the Home Office official is able to exercise their discretion in accordance with the official Home Office guidance. These are if the visa holder has:

Been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or fewer
Or, if they have been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas and received either a non-custodial sentence or an out-of-court disposal was recorded on their criminal record

Visitor visa applicants will be refused under this criteria unless more than 12 months have passed since the end of their custodial sentence or their conviction.

Ground 2 – Exclusion from the UK

Simply put, a visa application or entry clearance must be cancelled if a person has been excluded from the UK or a deportation issue has been issued. There is no discretion for this ground and refusal is mandatory. No application to the UK needs to have been made for a person to be added to this list.

Ground 3 – Not conducive to the public good

There is no discretion for this ground of refusal. This ground comes under the powers of the Home Secretary. A recent example is the rapper, Tyler, the Creator, while Theresa May was the Home Secretary over song lyrics in one of his albums. He was given no advanced warning and was detained, refused entry and removed from the UK.

Ground 4 – Exclusion from asylum or humanitarian protection grounds

Fourthly, an application to enter or stay in the UK may be refused where the person is deemed to be either someone who:

Is a danger to the UK
Should be excluded from the Refugee Convention
Should be excluded from a grant or humanitarian protection, or, should have their humanitarian protection revoked on the grounds of exclusion

Ground 5 – Involved in a sham marriage or civil partnership

If someone has been involved in a sham marriage or civil partnership, the Home Office may decide to refuse a visa or cancel permission.

Ground 6 – False representations

In this case, if the Home Office believe that false representations have been made, or false information and documents have been supplied then they can decide to refuse a visa or cancel permission. This is a discretionary refusal and applies whether or not the applicant knows that they provided a false document.

Ground 7 – Failure to provide the requirement information

When an applicant or visa holder doesn’t comply with the steps or provide information requested by the Home Office, they may have their permission refused or cancelled. This can include attending an interview, providing biometrics, undergoing a medical examination or providing a medical report.

Ground 8 – Previous breach of immigration laws

If an applicant or visa holder has previously breached UK immigration laws then they must be refused or cancelled permission. The minimum ban for ren-entry is 12 months for applicants who left the UK voluntarily and at their own expense. For those who have used deception, the maximum is 10 years.

What should you do if your application if refused due to the general grounds for refusal?

If your application is refused, or your permission to be in the UK is cancelled by the Home Office, then you will received a letter explaining your right to appeal. Most commonly, there is no right of appeal. Right of appeal is typically only eligible for those who have been involved in human rights law and humanitarian protects cases.

However, you can often submit a new application. Other options also include requesting an administrative review if you believe that an error was made by the Home Office, or requesting a judicial review if a decision is deemed to be unlawful. We will be able to advise you if we believe such appeals are likely to succeed.

It should be pointed out, however, that if you have been found to have used deception in an application for entry clearance, then this will be refused for a period of ten years as mentioned previously.

Our thoughts

It is important to be aware of these grounds for refusal when seeking to apply for entry or permission to stay in the UK. In addition to meeting the positive eligibility criteria for a visa, you must also not meet the general grounds of refusal for a UK visa application. To avoid any innocent mistakes preventing you from being able to enter the UK, it is vital to ensure that you carefully read questions and double check application forms before submitting them.

Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to these rules such as when it comes to family-based applications. At Lisa’s Law, our expert immigration team are highly knowledgeable about the criteria for general grounds of refusal and will be able to advise you on whether your application is exempt, as well as help you to challenge your refusal if we believe it is likely to succeed.

For any further questions, please contact us today.

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 [email protected].

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

Business visit visas relaxed in latest statement of changes to immigration rules

Last week the Home Office announced the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules: HC 246. With this edition of the statement of changes, notable changes have been made in the area of business visit visas.

Business visit visa changes

The new business visit visa allows visa holders to engage in the internal activities of the company and removes the original restrictions on working directly with clients. This will give greater flexibility for companies who are looking to do business in the UK.

However, a new requirement has also been introduced. This requirement essentially means that client facing activities are incidental to their employment abroad. They must not amount to the offshoring or a project or service to their overseas employer.

Business visitors will be allowed to work remotely while in the UK. However, the announcement makes clear that remote working must not be the main purpose of the visitor’s visit to the UK.

Other changes

Flight crew will be allowed to visit the UK between the months of March and October 2024 as part of a Civil Aviation Authority-approved wet lease (aeronautical term for a package lease of services such as aircraft and crew). While this was already in operation, this new measure incorporates it into the visitor rules.

Further changes include the following:

Expansion of research-related permitted activities for scientists, researchers, and visiting scholars.
Expansion of permitted activities of legal professionals, including holding business visit visas to come to the UK to consult, participate in arbitration, serve as arbitrators or mediators, serve as expert witnesses, etc.
Including conference speakers on the list of permitted paid engagements (PPE), allowing payment for such activities.
Moving the application criteria for PPE visitors to the standard visitor route. All tourists can engage in PPE activities and do not need to apply for this type of visa separately.

The changes within the Statement of Changes 246 will officially take effect from January 31, 2024. This modification greatly expands the scope of activities that business visitors can engage in in the UK, increases the flexibility of business visit visas, makes business activities in the UK more convenient, and contributes to the development of the British economy.

The biggest beneficiaries of this modification are multinational companies, overseas companies that work closely with British companies, research institutions, the aviation leasing industry, and the legal industry.

It could be said that these changes are an attempt to counterbalance the British government’s tightening of work visas in order to reduce immigration. The expansion of business visits may somewhat mitigate this.

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 [email protected].

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

Background

Miss M Manjula v Immigration and Nationality Services Ltd and IANS Solicitors Ltd

What claims did Miss Manjula bring forward?

Judgement

Direct race discrimination

Unfair dismissal

Our thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Act Now

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Tenants Have a Statutory Right to Request a Pet

Landlords Cannot Refuse Pets Outright

The 28-Day Response Rule

Refusals Must Be Reasonable and in Writing

Once Granted, Consent Cannot Be Withdrawn

What Happened to Mandatory Pet Insurance?

Before vs. After: At a Glance

The Process: How Does a Pet Request Work?

What This Means for Landlords

What This Means for Tenants

A Note on Assistance Animals

Our Thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background

Judgement of R (oao IAB & others) v SSHD

Our thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is Asylum?

The Asylum Process

Financial and housing support

How to register to your local GP

Permission to work

Asylum decision

Family reunification

Refused Asylum

Conclusion

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Immigration

Conveyancing

Litigation

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What types of applications do part 9 general grounds for refusal apply to?

Difference between discretionary and mandatory ground for refusal

What are the general grounds for refusal?

Ground 1 – Criminality

Ground 2 – Exclusion from the UK

Ground 3 – Not conducive to the public good

Ground 4 – Exclusion from asylum or humanitarian protection grounds

Ground 5 – Involved in a sham marriage or civil partnership

Ground 6 – False representations

Ground 7 – Failure to provide the requirement information

Ground 8 – Previous breach of immigration laws

What should you do if your application if refused due to the general grounds for refusal?

Our thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Business visit visa changes

Other changes

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar