Waiting to apply for a spouse visa? Apply now before changes are introduced

If you are in a relationship with a person from abroad and wish for them to come and live with you in the UK, you need to apply for a spouse visa. To be successful in the application for a Spouse visa, there are a number of requirements that you must satisfy.

At this moment in time, one of those requirements is that your sponsor (British or settled) must earn at least £18,600 per year. This has been the requirement since 2012, which is when appendix FM to the immigration rules was first introduced.

This earning threshold is easier to meet with the current minimum wage in the UK for a full-time worker being £18,964, working 35 hours per week (Gov.UK).

However, the Home Office has announced that from Spring 2024, they will be increasing the minimum earning requirement to £38,700. This is likely to cause significant obstacles for those wishing to be reunited with their family members. The requirement will be considerably higher for those who have children that are not British or Settled.

Will the new requirements affect spouse visa extension applications?

It is presently undecided as to whether the new income requirement of £38,700 being introduced in Spring 2024 will affect those currently in the UK on a spouse visa when they go for renewal. Initially it was announced that the new change would affect those already seeking to extend their visa with the Prime Minister stating that people have a set length of time for their visa, and there are no guarantees that they can stay in the UK after.

However, the UK government backtracked yesterday as they have announced that they are currently looking at how the new income requirements will apply to those renewing their visas. They said that they would provide an update in due course.

Our advice

We will keep you updated on any new announcements made. In the meantime, our advice is simple, apply now for your partners to join you in the UK, we expect the changes to take place in March / April 2024 and therefore there are still 3 months to apply.

For all those who are due to extend your visa next year, please note that you can apply to extend your visa up to 28 days before the expiry.

If you are concerned that you do not meet all the requirements presently, then please contact us and we would be happy to discuss your options.

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

Griffiths vs TUI: Can a judge reject uncontroverted evidence?

Package holidays are a popular option for British families, with many finding them to be a convenient and cheaper option when travelling abroad. Most of these package holidays include meal options, further adding to the convenience. Unfortunately, in this particular case, Mr Griffiths, fell ill after staying at an all-inclusive hotel he had booked with the package holiday provider, TUI. Following a long-running legal battle, the case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court.

The case has important consequences for personal injury law, with the Supreme Court finding that Mr Griffiths did not receive a fair trial. It also answers an important question as to whether a judge can reject uncontroverted evidence.

Keep reading to learn more about the case and the consequences of the decision by the Supreme Court.

Background

In August 2014, Mr and Mrs Griffiths and their youngest son were staying at a resort in Turkey on a TUI package holiday when Mr Griffiths suffered from a serious gastric illness after eating at the hotel. He was then admitted to hospital and subsequently diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis. This left him with long-term health problems and permanent symptoms.

Following his admission to hospital, Griffiths issued proceedings against TUI. His claim was pursued on two bases:

1. The claiming of damages against TUI under the Package Travel, Package Holiday and Package Tour Regulations 1992

2. The pursuing of a claim under sections 4 and 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

Initial trial

Despite this, TUI’s defence saw them deny that Mr Griffiths’ illness had been caused by any food or drink that he had consumed at the hotel. This led to him obtaining medical reports from a gastroenterologist and a microbiologist to support his claim. TUI also had permission to rely on expert evidence from a microbiologist and gastroenterologist but failed to serve a report from the latter within the timeframe specified by the court. Furthermore, they decided they would not serve a report by a consultant microbiologist. This resulted in TUI going to trial without the support of expert evidence.

The judge held that the claimant had to satisfy the test in Wood v TUI [2017] EWCA Civ 11 (CA). That is to say, the burden lies on the claimant to be able to prove that the food or drink provided by the hotel as part of the package holiday caused their illness.

Despite evidence suggesting that Mr Griffiths fell ill as a result of consuming food or drink from the hotel, the Judge held that there were deficiencies in the report by the gastroenterologist and dismissed the claim.

High Court

This takes us to the High Court, which the Claimant appealed to. The High Court Judge had to decide whether Judge Truman, the judge in the previous trial, had made a mistake by rejecting the gastroenterologist’s report.

The two main questions that he proposed that should be asked were: first, whether a court is obliged to accept an expert’s uncontroverted opinion even if that opinion can properly be characterised as bare ipse dixit and, if not, what are the circumstances in which a court is justified in rejecting such evidence; and, second, whether, in any event, Professor Pennington’s report could in fact be properly described as no more than a bare ipse dixit entitling the learned judge to reject it despite being uncontroverted”.

This decision went in the favour of Mr Griffiths, with the High Court finding that the report by the gastroenterologist, Professor Pennington, was uncontroverted as TUI did not provide any evidence to challenge the findings of the initial report. This would later prove to be an important factor in the decision by the Supreme Court. The High Court’s decision led to TUI appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal

Two of the Justices allowed the appeal. However the other, Lord Justice Bean, held that the view taken by Lady Justice Asplin that a party could reserve its criticisms of a report until closing submissions was wrong. He also held that the Claimant did not have a fair trial and made clear his view that courts should not allow litigation by ambush. Finally, he also disagreed with Lady Justice Alpin that a party should be able to wait until closing submissions to reserve its criticisms of a report. As a result of Lord Justice Bean’s decision, permission was granted to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decision

Now we come to the focus of this article, the Supreme Court decision. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found in favour of Mr Griffiths and held that his trial had been unfair. They found that both the trial judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal had erred significantly.

While the trial judge had failed to consider the effect of TUI’s failure to cross-examine Professor Pennington on the fairness of the trial, the Court of Appeal had limited the “scope of the rule to challenges of the honesty of a witness”. Lord Hodge ruled that the expert report of Professor Pennington was sufficient and Mr Griffiths had established his case based on the balance of probabilities and the evidence provided.

The Supreme Court referred to Phipson on Evidence, a leading work on civil and criminal evidence, in making their decision. Phipson on Evidence sets out the need for a party to “challenge on cross-examination the evidence of any witness of the opposing party if it wishes to submit to the court that that evidence should not be accepted”.

Lord Hodge further held that the the advancement of detailed criticisms of the report in TUI’s submissions was not fair in the absence of a proper challenge on cross-examination. He also found that it was a failure by the trial judge to accept such submissions. Furthermore, Lord Hodge held that it was not the court’s business to investigate admitted facts, such as the expert report provided by Professor Pennington.

Our comments

This is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court which emphasises the importance of a fair trial. The evidence was enough for Mr Griffiths to win despite not being ‘perfect’ in the eyes of the court. Furthermore, the failure of TUI to challenge Professor Pennington’s report meant that it was unfair for TUI to both advance its criticisms and for the trial judge to accept them. This judgement will be welcomed by travel lawyers and those working within personal injury law by ending the ability of large corporations by TUI to attack expert witness reports without proper cross examination.

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 signs new treaty with Rwanda in hope of reviving asylum partnership

The Home Office have confirmed that the Home Secretary James Cleverly has today signed a new agreement with Rwanda’s Foreign Minister, Vincent Birtua. This new UK-Rwanda asylum agreement follows the Supreme Court’s Judgement last month confirming that removals of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

The Home Office claim that the agreement signed today addresses the concerns of the Supreme Court along with strengthening Rwanda’s asylum processes. Most importantly it is said that the treaty ensures that asylum seekers that have been removed to Rwanda will not be at risk of refoulement such as being returned to their home country. However, asylum seekers would only be returned to the UK if there were issues such as committing a crime. The Home Office say that this would not breach refoulement.

The treaty also gives more powers to the independent “monitoring committee” which will ensure compliance with the terms of the treaty. The Rwandan asylum system will be strengthened by a new appeals body which will consist of judges from a mixture of nationalities all experienced in asylum and humanitarian claims.

To date, the UK government has paid over £140m to Rwanda. However, not a single person has been removed to the Central African country. As more information is released on the details of the treaty, we will be able to explore whether this time the treaty and the new UK-Rwanda asylum agreement is compatible with international law.

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 tightens legal immigration rules – minimum salary hiked to £38,700 for some visas

Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced plans which amount to one of the most substantial proposals in years to cut migration levels through the tightening of UK immigration rules. Popular visa routes like the skilled worker visa, health and care worker visas, as well as family visas are all affected.

Those who wish to come to the UK to work will now need to have an offer from an employer that is paying a salary of £38,700 per year. This will be the minimum requirement for anyone who wishes to apply for a skilled worker visa or a care worker visa. Presently, the minimum requirement is that you must be offered employment earning at least £26,200 per year or £10.75 per hour.

The UK government will be increasing the income requirement required for British or settled people who wish to sponsor family members from abroad. Presently, the income requirement is that a person who wishes to sponsor their partner needs to earn £18,600 per year. This has been the set limit for a substantive number of years. This will now be increased to £38,700, which amounts to an increase of 108% and more than double what is presently required.

Those who come to the UK on a health and care visa to work in the health and care section will no longer be able to bring dependants with them to the UK. This change will no doubt lead to a huge reduction in staff joining the UK health and care sector, with applicants not being able to bring their loved likely to be a huge deterrent. In the year ending September 2023, 101,000 visas were issued to care workers. With an estimated 120,000 visas granted to dependants of those care workers.

Finally, the government has also announced big changes to the shortage occupation list. This is a list of jobs that the UK have a shortfall in presently that enables the applicant to obtain a skilled worker visa with a 20% reduction of the salary requirement. The Home Secretary has announced that this reduction will end.

The above announcement is scheduled to take place in Spring 2024. We are still awaiting further information as to what will happen to those who are on the above routes presently, when applying for extension applications. Follow our social media platforms for further updates.

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

New to the UK? A helpful guide for new arrivals

Coming to the UK may be a daunting experience for some. For new arrivals, it may be difficult to know how to begin your integration into the UK. Here we provide a guide for those who have moved to the UK on how to register for services and how to start your life in the UK.

How to set up a bank account

To set up a bank account, you can do this either online or you can visit a branch in person. You will need to provide proof of identification and proof of address. The bank may require other documentation. If you cannot provide the documentation the banks require, then the bank may accept a letter from a professional person who has known you such as a teacher, GP, social worker or solicitor.

All banks usually have an account that they offer which can be used for free.

Citizen Advice Bureau have a very useful guide that can be found here (https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/getting-a-bank-account/)

How to register with a General Practitioner (doctor)

Everyone in the UK regardless of immigration status is entitled to register with a GP. It is free to register. You do not need proof of address or immigration status, or ID.

You will need to attend your local surgery close to your home and complete a registration form. Your local surgery may not be accepting new patients and if this is the case, you can attend the next closest surgery to you.

If you are also registering your children, you will need to complete a separate form.

The NHS provide a very helpful guide that can be found here (https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/gps/how-to-register-with-a-gp-surgery/)

How to register your children for school

The most important registration for all parents is registering their child for school. You do not need to have immigration status to do so. You will need to apply for registration via your local council’s website. You will usually be asked to list a few schools that you wish your child to attend.

The above process is for both children applying for primary school and secondary school.

The UK Gov website provide a very useful guide on how to apply which can be found here (https://www.gov.uk/schools-admissions/how-to-apply)

Learning English

After arriving to the UK, you may wish to improve your English. The British Council offer affordable courses to help migrants learn English. The link to the courses can be found here (https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/)

If you cannot afford to pay for English courses, you can contact non-profit organizations who may be able to offer you classes for free. One such organization is refugeecouncil.org.uk.

National Insurance Number

To apply for a national insurance number, you need to apply online. A national insurance number is required for you to work in the UK and can take four weeks for you to receive. You can legally start work without the number as long as you can prove you are allowed to work. However, you must obtain the National Insurance number within 3 months of starting employment.

You can apply using the gov.uk website, a link can be found here – https://www.gov.uk/apply-national-insurance-number

Contacting the Police

If you wish to report a crime, then you must contact the Police. You must call 999 on your telephone if it is an emergency. If it is not an emergency, then you should call 101 on your telephone. Calls to both numbers are free from all phones.

Should you prefer to report a crime online, this can be done via the Police.uk website. The link can be found here (https://www.police.uk/pu/contact-the-police/report-a-crime-incident/)

We hope that the above helps all that are new to the UK.

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

Why does my biometric residence permit expire in 2024?

Many of you will have noticed that the expiry date showing on your Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) card is 31st December 2024, prior to many of your visa expiry dates. The good news is that this doesn’t mean that your leave to remain will expire on 31 December 2024. Instead it means that your card itself will simply expire on that date.

The reason for this is that UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) division of the Home Office is developing a digital immigration system. The Home Office is replacing the Biometric Residence Permit with an online record of people’s immigration status, which is known as an eVisa.

What is an eVisa?

An eVisa is an online record of your immigration status and the conditions of your permission to enter or stay in the UK. Updating your physical document to an eVisa does not affect your immigration status or the conditions of your permission to enter or stay in the UK.

With an eVisa, you’ll be able to travel to the UK without carrying a physical document in the future, except for your current passport, which must be registered to your UKVI account. Until then you will need to continue to carry your physical document if you have one.

You can use your UKVI account details to log in to the view and prove service to see your eVisa. You can also use the UKVI account to share your immigration status information with third parties, such as employers or landlords.

How do I get an eVisa and a UKVI account?

Please note that if you currently have leave to remain in the UK and have either a BRP, a BRC or other physical documents to prove your immigration status, you do not have to take any action at the moment.

According to the Home Office guidance, if you have leave to remain in the UK, you will be able to see your eVisa by generating a share code in the view and prove service once you’ve completed your UKVI account registration. This will give people temporary access to your immigration status information.

You can get a new share code whenever you need one, so you do not have to remember a single unique code to prove your status. The Home Office will also continue to share relevant information about your immigration status automatically with other public authorities, so you won’t need to interact with online services very often to prove your immigration status.

Further updates on when you need to register for a UKVI account, and what you need to do will be provided by the Home Office in 2024.

For further updates on eVisa in 2024, follow Lisa’s law for the latest immigration news.

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

Harmonious Resolution: Neighbour Dispute Over Party Wall Overcome Through Mediation Mastery

We have recently been involved in a case that was put before the Bristol County Court. The case featured neighbours embroiled in a dispute over a proposed extension by neighbouring building owners. Due to the disagreement between the neighbouring parties it, eventually led to a legal challenge against an Award made by surveyors. Both parties were signatories to the Party Wall Agreement governed by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

This article explores the complexity of the case and the transformative power of mediation in resolving complex neighbour disputes and saving parties’ costs and time.

In this case, I led alongside my exceptional assistant, Krystal Yan. We provided support in calming our client and bridging the language barrier among the various parties involved, including clients, counsel, mediator, and neighbours with their legal team. Our client chose the experienced Mr. Carl Fain from Tanfield Chambers, a specialist in property and chancery, to lead the mediation.

The mediation was further enriched by the appointment of independent Harry Spurr (agreed by both parties) from St John’s Chambers in Bristol who was an adept mediator with excellent interpersonal and listening skills, as well as an ability for creative problem-solving.

Together, all parties played a crucial role in successfully navigating and resolving the complexities of this dispute. This is also with the cooperation and willingness from the neighbour and their legal team.

Background of the Dispute

The appellant, our client who is the owner of the adjoining property, voiced his concerns when his adjoining neighbour sought to construct an extension within three metres of our client’s property. A dispute emerged as our client claimed that the extension trespassed onto his property, causing damage and loss.

The Award

Surveyors were appointed by both parties which rendered an Award on 15 May 2023 determining that there was no trespass and allocating costs unevenly, with 60% to be borne by our client. Our client was dissatisfied with the outcome. He instructed our firm to initiate an appeal, citing procedural errors, impartiality concerns, and disputes over jurisdiction.

Grounds for Appeal

The grounds for appeal included procedural errors, raising questions about the impartiality of the Award, and disputing the jurisdiction of the surveyors. It was our client’s position to argue that the surveyors overstepped their authority by determining the boundary and asserting no damages occurred. Additionally, the appellant contested the fairness of the cost distribution.

The Mediation Breakthrough

Although convincing our client to participate in mediation posed challenges, my colleague, Krystal Yan, showcased exceptional persuasion skills. Her ability to keep the client calm and encourage attentive consideration of our advice ultimately led to the client agreeing to engage in the mediation process.

The Transformative Power of Mediation

The resolution not only brought an end to the protracted costly legal battle but also alleviated almost a year of sleepless nights and anger experienced by our client. Mediation, often viewed as an alternative dispute resolution method, showcased its effectiveness in addressing complex neighbourly disputes. The parties left the mediation session with a renewed sense of understanding and satisfaction.

Conclusion

This case highlights the challenges inherent in neighbourly disputes, the intricacies of legal proceedings under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, and the transformative impact of successful mediation. As neighbours move forward, the resolution achieved through mediation serves as a testament to the value of alternative dispute resolution in fostering amicable solutions and rebuilding neighbourly relationships.

Mediation has demonstrated its effectiveness in handling intricate cases by allowing parties to focus not on the legalities but on discovering common ground and mutually acceptable solutions. The mediation process transcends the concept of winning or losing.

It’s also evident that choosing the right mediator place a vital role. It is evident that Mr Carl Fain and Mr Harry Spurr demonstrated exceptional mediation skills, embodying the qualities essential for a mediator. They have both played a pivotal role in navigating and successfully resolving the complexities of the dispute. We would highly recommend Mr Carl Fain (who is now appointed as a Recorder to sit on the South Eastern Circuit (Crime) https://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk/person/carl-fain/ and Mr Harry Spur if you have any boundary disputes https://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/profile/harry-spurr.

Please feel free to contact myself, Evveline Ziwei Loh at [email protected] or Krystal Xu Yan at [email protected] as it is always great to receive review as the ones below when we achieve client’s goal in resolving their issues. That is our firm’s pivotal role.

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

Latest asylum seeker statistics paint a complex picture – what can we learn?

The Home Office has published the latest asylum and resettlement statistics for the year ending September 2023. These latest statistics show that there were 40,571 asylum grants in the year ending in September 2023. This is the most asylum grants since 2010. For comparison, the second highest amount of grants were in 2021 where the grants totalled 31,339. 2022 was the third highest year, with grants totalling 24,050.

Many people may lack confidence in claiming asylum due to lack of evidence or other issues. Contrary to this, the statistics show that if you have a genuine claim then a claim should be presented to the Home Office, as a clear and well-presented case may lead to an asylum grant.

Let’s take a look at some other areas within the asylum seeker statistics, such as asylum claims granted following the substantive interview stage, as well as the number of overall asylum applications.

Huge increase in Asylum claims being granted by the Home Office

There has also been a huge increase in the number of asylum claims that have been granted by the Home Office following the substantive interview.

The statistics show that 31,443 asylum claims were granted following the substantive interview this year ending September 2023, with 10,415 claims being refused. This means that approximately 75% of claims considered by the Home Office this year were successful. When compared with all years since 2010, this is a huge increase compared the second highest year (2022) where the total grants were 14,370. However, the percentage of grants were slightly higher at 76%.

The statistics appear to show that the Home Office are now comprehensively considering claims made by applicants. Previously, the likelihood of grants at the initial stage was very low and claims would need to be made at tribunals for fair consideration. To put this in context, between the years 2010 to 2018, the median percentage of grants to refusals was 34.78%.

Decrease in overall asylum applicants

However, the latest asylum seeker statistics also show that there has been a decrease in the number of asylum claims made in the UK for the year ending September 2023. The total number of claims was 75,340, slightly lower than the number of claims made last year which amounted to 76,094 overall.

It is no secret that the UK Government believes migration to the UK is a serious concern and crossings over the channel must be addressed to stop asylum claimants. However, the published statistics clearly show that contrary to the UK Government’s opinion, the number of claims made is decreasing, albeit by a small amount.

The decrease in the number of claims could be down to a number of reasons. Fewer migrants may be coming to the UK, or people may have had obstacles in applying for asylum due to waiting times for screening interviews taking longer than previously.

You can read the full statistics here.

Should you wish to obtain further advice in relation to the asylum process, then please contact us.

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

India and Georgia to Be Added to Safe Countries List

On November 8, the UK Home Office announced the draft legislation procedure of adding India and Georgia to the safe countries list within Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This means that if individuals from these countries seek asylum or make human rights claims in the UK, those claims would be considered inadmissible unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”

What is the Safe Countries list?

The Section 80 AA safe countries list was introduced by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The upcoming regulations aim to expand this list.

According to Section 80A of the 2002 Act, any asylum claims made by EU nationals will be deemed inadmissible unless there are exceptional circumstances. Once the Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is fully enacted, Section 80A will be expanded beyond EU nationals and will apply to nationals of all countries on the list at section 80AA.

According to Section 80AA of the UK law, the Home Secretary can add a country to the safe countries list if there is “no serious risk of persecution of its nationals, and removal of nationals to that country cannot go against the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Convention”, revealed the UK government.

The section 80AA list is also referred to in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 at Section 4 (unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions) and 6 (removal for the purposes of section 2 or 4), although neither section is yet in force. Section 6 provides that where the duty to remove applies, a person who has claimed asylum cannot be returned to their country of origin unless it is on the list in section 80AA. They could be returned to a country listed in the Schedule to the Act, but this would require those countries to agree to accept third country nationals.

Why are India and Georgia being added?

The Home Office justified including India and Georgia in the safe countries list based on asylum statistics, showing a significant number of asylum claims from these countries. This is despite the UK government claiming that people from there are not at risk of persecution.

For the UK government, there are two separate reasons for adding countries to the ‘safe’ list. The first one is that if the duty to remove was brought into force, an Indian national who claimed asylum could not be returned to India if it was not on the section 80AA list, but they could be sent to Rwanda (if there was a functioning transfer agreement in place). As there is no functioning agreement, it makes more sense for the government to add India to the section 80AA list so that Indian nationals can be returned there if the duty to remove is brought in.

The second reason is that even without the duty to remove, adding these countries to the list means that asylum and human rights claims made by their nationals must be deemed inadmissible under section 80A of the 2002 Act, absent “exceptional circumstances”.

Our Comments

By expanding the safe countries list, the UK government hope to strengthen the UK immigration system. In their view, this can be done by preventing unnecessary protection claims from asylum seekers as part of their goal to reduce migration.

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman said expanding the ‘safe’ countries list will enable the UK government “to more swiftly remove people with no right to be here and sends a clear message that if you come here illegally, you cannot stay”.

However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential repercussions of this policy shift. Despite recognizing nationals from India and Georgia as refugees, the UK government recognizing nationals from India and Georgia as refugees, the process becomes more challenging for individuals from these countries seeking asylum. The apprehension is that this adjustment may result in some people being sent back to their home countries, possibly exposing them to persecution. This concern is heightened by the stringent requirement of “exceptional circumstances” needed to resist the return. This policy shift, while aiming to strengthen immigration control, raises human rights considerations and the potential risk of returning individuals to precarious situations.

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

Judicial Wake-Up Call: A Tale of Late Notices, Non-Compliant Statements, and Inadequate Time Estimates

The recent judgment in the case of Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Hung & Anor [2023] EWHC 2445 (Comm) underscores the importance of adhering to the Civil Procedural Rule. It highlights the duty of all parties involved to promptly inform the court of any emerging complexities and to reassess previously agreed time estimates for substantive submissions. Failing to do so may result in costly adjournments during substantive hearings.

Our firm had the honour of representing the second and third respondents in this case, with Mr. Roger Masefield KC as the leading counsel and Mr. Nicholas Yell serving as the senior counsel for our clients. I had the privilege of serving as the leading solicitor on this case, working alongside my colleague, Paul Cheuk, whose valuable assistance greatly contributed to our efforts.

Key Issues

Judge Mark Pelling KC, who presided over this case, was unimpressed with various aspects, including the claimant’s late service of a notice under CPR 32.19, challenging document authenticity nearly two weeks before the hearing, the fourth defendant’s non-compliant witness statement filed nearly two weeks before the hearing, and the collective failure of the claimant and second, third, and fourth respondents to recognise the inadequacy of the time estimate.

“12. The need for an adjournment in large part arises from a failure on the part of the claimant (i) to issue the relevant notices challenging authenticity in time, (ii) to issue an application for relief from sanctions until two weeks before this hearing was due to commence, and (iii) the claimant requiring the application to be listed at the start of the trial.

13. By the same token, some responsibility must rest on the shoulders of each of the second, third and fourth respondents for their failure to engage directly with the court and/or with the claimant in relation to the time estimate once it became apparent that the time estimate was plainly inadequate. Had that been addressed, then an application for directions could have been made at short notice and the wasting of at least some of the court time could have been avoided.”

The judgment thoroughly examined the intricacies of the adjournment and assigns responsibility to each party for the resulting costs.

Background

The case involved an application to make a charging order absolute, which was originally scheduled for a three-day hearing with half a day’s judicial reading time. However, it became apparent that the hearing would require a longer duration, and all parties agreed on a period of five days with one and a half days’ judicial reading time. The primary issue revolved around determining the ultimate beneficial owners of the property subject to charging orders, specifically focusing on the second, third, and fourth respondents.

Complications and Relief from Sanctions

The issue arose when two applications for relief from sanctions were made by the fourth respondent and the claimant which added complexity to the proceedings. The fourth respondent sought relief due to the Mandarin-speaking nature of their witnesses, whose statements were initially presented in English without proper translation from Mandarin. The Claimant also filed an application for relief due to the late service of notice to challenge the authenticity of the underlying agreements relied upon by the second, third and fourth respondents were non-authentic and sham.

Insufficient Time Estimate

The time estimate of three days was considered inadequate and later adjusted to five days. The hearing became increasingly problematic with the addition of the seventh respondent, Mandarin-speaking witnesses, and the time-consuming relief from sanctions applications. Recognising the impracticality of the original time estimate, all parties agreed to an adjournment.

Judge’s Critique

Judge Pelling expressed strong disapproval of the last-minute adjournment, emphasising the unacceptability of cramming a vast amount of submission in a short time. Such a practise could potentially lead to unfairness. Furthermore, such inadequacy in time estimate wasted three full days of the Commercial Court time. The Judge highlighted the responsibility of all parties, except the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, for failing to address the inadequacy of the time limit.

Costs Allocation

The central question addressed in the judgment was the allocation of costs resulting from the adjournment. The claimant argued for cost reservation pending the determination of the substantive issues. However, the judge rejected this, asserting that the adjournment costs are distinct from the substantive outcome.

Responsibility Attribution

Judge Pelling determined that the claimant bore primary responsibility for the adjournment due to late issuance of notices challenging authenticity and the delayed application for relief from sanctions. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the shared responsibility of the second, third and fourth respondents for not addressing the time estimate issue promptly.

Costs Award

The judge ruled that the second and third respondents were entitled to recover 75% of their adjournment costs from the claimant, reflecting their share of responsibility. The fourth respondent, facing additional issues related to the relief from sanctions application, was awarded 50% of her adjournment costs. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, with a limited role and no direct responsibility for the time estimate, were entitled to recover their adjournment costs in full.

Conclusion

I am glad that our clients were happy with the outcome above but it is imperative to bear in mind the critical importance of complying with the Civil Procedural Rule and timely procedural adherence in legal proceedings. The last-minute adjournment, though regrettable, necessitated a fair allocation of costs. The court acknowledges the primary responsibility of the claimant for procedural lapses leading to the adjournment. However, shared responsibility is recognised concerning the inadequacy of the time estimate.

In determining costs, a balanced approach was adopted. The second and third respondents are awarded 75% of their adjournment costs, reflecting their proportional responsibility. The fourth respondent, facing additional complexities, is awarded 50% of her costs. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, with a limited role and no direct impact on the adjournment, are entitled to recover their costs in full.

The judgment above serves as a reminder to all practitioners of the judiciary’s commitment to procedural fairness and the need for parties to engage proactively in addressing time estimates and compliance issues. It serves as a great reminder that all parties share the responsibility for efficient case management, failing which it will reflect dearly when it comes to allocation of costs.

It is evident that the case was successful being led under the guidance of Mr Roger Masefield KC https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/our-people/profile/roger-masefield-kc and Mr Nicholas Yell https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/912631B093D13865AE6EA50D81F049B6.html. We would highly recommend their expertise in both civil and commercial disputes.

Please feel free to contact myself, Evveline Ziwei Loh at [email protected] or Paul Wai Ho Cheuk at [email protected].

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

News and Insights

Will the new requirements affect spouse visa extension applications?

Our advice

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background

Initial trial

High Court

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court decision

Our comments

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

How to set up a bank account

How to register with a General Practitioner (doctor)

How to register your children for school

Learning English

National Insurance Number

Contacting the Police

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is an eVisa?

How do I get an eVisa and a UKVI account?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background of the Dispute

The Award

Grounds for Appeal

The Mediation Breakthrough

The Transformative Power of Mediation

Conclusion

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Huge increase in Asylum claims being granted by the Home Office

Decrease in overall asylum applicants

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is the Safe Countries list?

Why are India and Georgia being added?

Our Comments

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Key Issues

Background

Complications and Relief from Sanctions

Insufficient Time Estimate

Judge’s Critique

Costs Allocation

Responsibility Attribution

Costs Award

Conclusion

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar