Security for Costs in UK Litigation: What International Businesses Need to Know

In UK litigation, a defendant can apply for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs — a financial guarantee to cover the defendant’s legal costs if the claim fails. This is especially relevant for international claimants, including those based in China.

When Can Security for Costs Be Ordered?

A UK court may order security if:

The claimant is based outside the UK.
There are concerns the claimant cannot or will not pay the defendant’s costs if ordered.
The claimant appears to be avoiding enforcement (e.g. hiding assets).
The court finds it just and fair to do so.

How Much Security and How to Provide It

The amount depends on the estimated costs the defendant may recover. Security can be provided by:

Paying into court,
Providing a bank guarantee, or
An undertaking from a third party.

Failure to provide security may result in the claim being paused or struck out.

Advice for International Clients

Be prepared: Understand the potential for a security for costs application.
Demonstrate financial standing early, if needed.
Seek early legal advice to navigate UK court procedures confidently.

Conclusion

Security for costs is a common and powerful tool in UK litigation, especially in cases involving international claimants. Understanding how it works can help international businesses protect their position and plan effectively.

Our firm has extensive experience advising international, but particularly Chinese clients in UK legal disputes. If you would like to discuss how security for costs could affect your case, please contact our team for expert guidance.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

Immigration Rules HC836 – A Summary of the Latest Immigration Changes

A suite of important immigration rule changes are set to take effect in July 2025 (Immigration Rules HC836) marking a significant shift across several key areas of the UK’s immigration framework.

The amendments highlight a more flexible residence test under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), corrections to the Private Life route for children and young adults, a stricter approach to applicants excluded from international protection, recognition of time spent as a British citizen under long residence provisions, broader use of prior English language tests, and expanded Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) requirements.

In this article, we will break down the changes within the Immigration Rules HC836 in detail. Keep reading to find out how they could affect you.

EUSS Continuous Residence Test (30 months in 60 months period)

Effective date： 16 July 2025

A significant change to the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) will ease the path to settled status for many applicants with pre-settled status which came into effect on 16 July 2025. Under the updated rules, individuals no longer need to demonstrate continuous residence in the UK since the end of the Brexit transition period (31 December 2020). Instead, they will be eligible for settled status if they can show 30 months of UK residence within the previous 60 months, regardless of whether that period includes lengthy absences.

This reform addresses a critical gap in the original scheme, which left many EEA nationals and their family members at risk of losing their route to permanent residence due to a lack of awareness about the strict “6 months in any 12 months” absence rule. The adjustment follows extensive legal advocacy and reflects the UK government’s compliance with the 2022 High Court decision in R (IMA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which found parts of the EUSS unlawful.

In practical terms, this change benefits pre-settled status holders with extended absences, those eligible for the Home Office’s automated upgrade to settled status, and applicants who may have technically breached residence requirements under the previous rules but have maintained substantial ties to the UK. This marks a welcome step toward greater fairness and clarity in the post-Brexit immigration framework.

Private Life corrections for children

Effective date: 29 July 2025

From 29 July 2025, the Immigration Rules will introduce a targeted but important correction to the Private Life route, specifically aimed at children and young adult who missed out on a previous concession offered by the Home Office. The new rule reinstates and formalises a narrow but crucial pathway for children and young adults who:

Could have benefitted from the Home Office’s earlier Private Life concession;
Did not apply under the Private Life route before 20 June 2022;
Instead received leave as a dependent under Appendix FM (family life) or even leave outside the Rules.

These individuals will not be required to show that they are currently on, or were last granted, leave under the Private Life route in order to apply for settlement. Instead, they will be assessed based on their 5-year continuous legal residence history.

Secondly, a more specific additional continuous residence rules at PL 15.1 have been introduced for children born in the UK, who have been living in the UK continuously for seven years.

Private life route for children Eligibility before:

Child born in the UK	After seven years continuous residence (with or without legal permission) can apply for immediate settlement with their UK birth Certificate and relevant documents, proving that it is not reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK	IMMEDIATE
Child or young adult born outside the UK	Child not born in the UK with seven years residence or young adult with ‘half-life’ in the UK, need to have leave on Private life first, then can apply for settlement after they are on the Private life route for 5 years	FIVE YEARS AFTER ON QUALIFYING ROUTE

Private life route for children Eligibility after 29 July 2025:

Child born in the UK	After meet the continuous seven years residence requirement at PL 15.1 (see below) (with or without legal permission) can apply for immediate settlement with their UK birth Certificate and relevant documents, proving that it is not reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK.	IMMEDIATE
Child or young adult born outside the UK	Child not born in the UK with seven years continuous residence or young adult with ‘half-life’ in the UK, can apply for settlement after they are on Private route/Family life route/ leave outside the Rules route for 5 years.	FIVE YEARS AFTER ON QUALIFYING ROUTE

Relevant rules:

“For PL 15.1. (including the title before PL 15.1), substitute:

“Continuous Residence requirement for settlement on the Private Life route

PL 15.1. The applicant must meet the continuous residence requirements as set out in Appendix Continuous Residence for the qualifying period for settlement, unless they are a child born in the UK.

Continuous residence requirements for a child born in the UK applying for settlement on the Private Life route

PL 15A.1. The period of continuous residence at PL 13.2. may include time spent in the UK with or without permission.

PL 15A.2. The period of continuous residence at PL 13.2. does not include any period during which the applicant was serving a sentence of imprisonment or was detained in an institution other than a prison.

PL 15A.3. The period of continuous residence at PL 13.2. is broken (i.e. is no longer continuous) if any of the following apply:

(a) the applicant has been absent from the UK for more than 6 months at any one time; or

(b) the applicant has spent a total of 550 days or more absent from the UK during the period of continuous residence at PL 13.2.; or

(c) the applicant has been removed, deported or has left the UK having had an application for permission to enter or stay in the UK refused; or

(d) the applicant left the UK with no reasonable expectation at the time of leaving that they would lawfully be able to return.” .”

Restricted leave for certain excluded individuals

Effective date: 16 July 2025

A significant and consequential change has taken effect under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Under the new provisions, it will now be mandatory, rather than discretionary, for the Home Office to refuse an application for Entry clearance, Permission to enter and Permission to stay in cases involving individuals excluded from international protection on specific serious criminal or harmful conduct grounds. These changes apply to individuals who have either already been excluded under Part 11, specifically paragraph 339AA, 339AC, 339D or 339GB or individuals who would be excluded under those provisions had they submitted a protection claim.

If an individual falls within these exclusion categories, their application for entry clearance, permission to enter, or permission to stay must be refused. Similarly, any existing permission must be cancelled. In such cases, the only form of leave available is restricted leave—a temporary and limited form of immigration status that does not lead to settlement or British citizenship. Such leave is typically granted in narrow circumstance to comply with internation legal obligation, and may be subject to strict reporting and monitoring requirements.

Relevant rules:

“Exclusion from the Refugee Convention

339AA. This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person should have been, or is, excluded from being a refugee in accordance with Article 1D and 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 1F of the Refugee Convention, as defined in section 36 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Danger to the United Kingdom

339AC. This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State is satisfied that: Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention applies in that:

(i) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the person as a danger to the security of the United Kingdom; or

(ii) having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, the person constitutes a danger to the community of the United Kingdom (see section 72 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002).

Exclusion from humanitarian protection

339D. An asylum applicant is excluded from a grant of humanitarian protection for the purposes of paragraph 339C(iv) where the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are serious reasons for considering that the asylum applicant:

(i) has committed, instigated or otherwise participated in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; or

(ii) has committed, instigated or otherwise participated in the commission of a serious non-political crime outside the UK prior to their admission to the UK as a person granted humanitarian protection; or

(iii) has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations; or

(iv) having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime (as defined in Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002), constitutes a danger to the community of the UK; or

(v) is a danger to the security of the UK.

Revocation of humanitarian protection on the grounds of exclusion

339GB. This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person granted humanitarian protection should have been or is excluded from humanitarian protection under paragraph 339D of these rules.”

Long residence for British Citizenship

Effective date: 29 July 2025

From 29 July 2025, Appendix Long Residence will be amended to allow individuals to count time spent in the UK as a British citizen towards the 10-year lawful residence requirement under paragraphs 3.1 and 11.1.

This change recognises that some individuals may have held British citizenship for part of their residence period and subsequently lost it—either voluntarily or through official deprivation. However, an important distinction is drawn. That the time spent as a British citizen will ONLY count towards long residence if the person voluntarily renounced their citizenship but not where they have been the subject of a deprivation process.

A new guidance on Declaration of renunciation that is published in May noted that if one voluntarily renounces their British citizenship and want to live in the UK. If they are living in the UK, they can apply for settlement at the same time as they apply to give up their citizenship. The settlement application will be decided after the renunciation has been processed.

Reuse of English Test across different routes

Effective date: 16 July 2025

Applicants now will be permitted to reuse an English language test certificate that was previously accepted as part of a successful immigration application, regardless of the route under which it was originally submitted.

This amendment brings the Immigration Rules in line with existing caseworker guidance, ensuring consistency and reducing unnecessary duplication. As long as the certificate was accepted by the Home Office in a prior successful application, it can now be relied upon in subsequent applications—even if the applicant is switching to a different visa route.

Expanded ETA requirement

Effective date: 15 July 2025

An important clarification for individuals crossing the UK-Ireland border has taken into effect on 15 July 2025. The Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) validity requirements are being amended to formally include a specific category of travellers previously omitted from the Immigration Rules. Under the updated Rules, an ETA will be explicitly required for relevant nationals who:

Enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland,
Having arrived in Ireland from outside the Common Travel Area (CTA), or
Having previously held limited leave to enter or remain in the UK that has since expired unless they are classified as an S2 Healthcare Visitor.

Final comments

This concludes our explanation about the latest changes to the immigration rules, Immigration Rules HC836. Contact us today for help with any of our immigration legal services you may require, or subscribe to our newsletter for further updates.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

Who Gets to Keep the Dog in a Divorce? A Recent Case Sheds Light

While one might typically expect the most contentious financial issues in a divorce to involve the family home or a business, the case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 instead centred on the ownership of a golden retriever puppy and who gets the dog in a divorce. To many people, pets are like family members, something which goes beyond the traditional legal classification of pets as “chattel”.

Judgment was handed down for this case on 20 December 2024.Let’s examine the case and who gets to keep the dog in a divorce in more detail.

Background

The couple filed for divorce in October 2022 and have two children who were born in 2011 and 2017 respectively. A conditional order was pronounced in May 2023, and the parties confirmed they had not lived together since. The children and the dog remained with the wife and had no contact with the husband. Both the husband and the wife claimed ownership of the dog.

Disputed Issues

Who Paid for the Dog?

The husband claimed that he purchased the dog in cash and that the wife made no financial contribution. The wife, however, asserted that it was a joint family purchase. She is the registered keeper and has paid for all ongoing expenses, including veterinary care and insurance.

Under English law, pets are considered as chattels (i.e., tangible, movable property), similar to items such as jewellery or furniture. Therefore, courts do not focus on who purchased the pet, but rather the fair division of property based on the circumstances. Despite its irrelevance, District Judge Crisp found the wife’s evidence more credible, noting her status as the registered keeper and highlighting the inconsistencies in the husband’s legal correspondence.

Whether the Dog was a Disability Support Animal

The husband argued that he had trained and registered the dog as a support animal to assist with his mental health. He submitted a letter from his medical practitioner to support his claim. The wife disputed this, stating the dog had never been registered as a support animal.

The court found that the registration occurred only in February 2024 — after the parties had separated. Furthermore, earlier legal documents made no mention of the dog’s support role. The judge concluded that the registration was likely made to strengthen the husband’s legal position.

The Incident on 12th December

The husband claimed he encountered the dog running loose in the community and took it home, where it willingly accompanied him. The husband was later arrested, and the dog was returned to the wife.

The wife’s account differed significantly. She stated that the husband forcibly took the dog from her mother, who had been walking it. The dog ran off because of the husband and that he was chasing it. The wife had a recording of the husband dragging the dog into his car from the family home where the dog had run back to. The dog was later returned with injuries to its paws after being dragged away by the husband.

The court found the wife’s evidence compelling during cross-examination and did not accept the husband’s version that the dog willingly accompanied him.

Judgment

District Judge Crisp referred to the legal authority in RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 as to who has principally looked after the dog. He also emphasised the question is not who purchased the dog, but who the dog sees as their carer and who is currently taking care of the dog. The judge noted:

The wife had cared for the dog exclusively for 18 months after the couple’s separation
The judge agreed with the wife that 18 months is a significant period in a dog’s life
The dog ran back to the family home after the December incident, suggesting it viewed that as its safe space
The husband had managed without the dog for 18 months, undermining his claim of necessity

The judge concluded that the wife had consistently prioritised the dog’s welfare and should retain ownership.

Our thoughts

The case is notable given the limited precedent on pet ownership in divorce proceedings, despite the prevalence of family pets. While pets are traditionally treated as chattels under English law, the judgment in FI v DO suggests a shift toward considering the welfare and emotional bonds of the animal. District Judge Crisp’s approach introduces a more nuanced framework, where the pet’s best interests may influence the outcome.

However, until higher courts adopt a similar stance, legal uncertainty remains. Outcomes may vary depending on the specific facts of the case — including the type of pet (e.g., dogs versus cats), its value, and the nature of the relationship with each party. Nonetheless, this decision may serve as a useful reference point for future cases involving pet ownership in divorce proceedings.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

R v BMJ – Risks of Criminal Records for Victims of Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery

During their immigration application, many clients are concerned about a sensitive but realistic question: “If I have prior criminal records, will it impact my application? If I was forced to participate in a crime, would it still be possible to reverse the case?” Such situations are not infrequent in practice, especially in cases involving drugs and illegal labour. The victim of modern slavery or human trafficking is a common defence for affected individuals to mitigate unfavourable decisions.

The case we’re discussing today, R v BMJ , is about applications for leave to appeal against convictions for multiple drug-related and associated offences as well as sentences imposed across three distinct sets of offences. The applicant sought to mitigate his criminal liability and avoid adverse immigration consequences by attempting to plead a victim of modern slavery or trafficking . While the defence was unsuccessful in this instance, it provides a valuable lesson for similar cases in the future.

Background of R v BMJ

The applicant has a criminal record involving multiple offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for his convictions, including possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, possession of criminal property, carrying a bladed article, failing to surrender to custody, drug supply offences, and driving offences.

In November 2022, the Single Competent Authority (SCA) issued a conclusive grounds decision recognising him as a “victim of modern slavery in the UK during approximately 2007/2008 – April 2021 for the specific purpose of criminal exploitation” The applicant has since applied for an extension of time in which to appeal against convictions and sentences, submitting fresh evidence linked to his trafficking victim status. The applicant argues that this new context undermines prior findings and justifies revisiting the original decisions.

The Court fully considered the relevant sentencing guidelines, prior defence materials, and new evidence, and concluded as follows:

Regarding the appeal against sentence, the applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigating factors related to drug trafficking and debt. However, the Court found that the applicant did not credibly demonstrate that he was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking in connection with the offences at that time.

Appropriate reductions within the sentencing range had already been made, taking into account both the applicant’s prior convictions and the seriousness of the offences, rendering the sentence fair and proportionate.

The Court ruled out any abuse of process and found no other grounds that could affect the safety of the convictions; therefore, the application’s grounds were unarguable, and his applicant was refused.

Our thoughts

Authorities consider the conviction based on the following factors: 1) whether there is reason to believe that the individual is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking? 2) whether there is clear evidence of a credible common law defence of duress? 3) whether there is clear evidence of a statutory defence 4) whether it is in the public interest to prosecute the individual?

It is notable that, although the applicant was later referred through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) process and ultimately recognised as a victim by the SCA, the Court did not rely solely on this finding. Instead, it examined the case as a whole.

Given the applicant’s inconsistent statements and lack of credibility, alongside prosecution evidence showing the applicant played an active role in drug distribution, the Court concluded that—while the applicant may have been in debt or under some pressure—there was no clear exploitative relationship linking the offences to trafficking. The applicant’s voluntary and leading involvement in the crimes was established. Even if the applicant qualified as a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, which could warrant some mitigation, the seriousness of the offences and the public interest justified prosecution.

This case highlights that in immigration matters involving criminal charges, especially serious crimes such as drug offences, claims of being a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery require strong, consistent evidence to influence both criminal liability and immigration outcomes. UK courts apply a high standard for such claims, and personal statements alone rarely succeed. Simple or late claims that conflict with the facts are usually rejected and can weaken the defence. Therefore, it is crucial that such claims should be supported by solid evidence.

For applicants with criminal records or facing serious charges, even if there are vulnerable circumstances such as being forced to commit crimes, prosecution may continue based on public interest. Such criminal records can seriously affect future immigration applications.

Applicants with these kinds of experiences shall seek professional legal advice early, which helps assess whether there are grounds to claim trafficking or Modern Slavery and allows for timely use of protection mechanisms, such as the NRM, to collect supporting evidence.

If you or your family members face similar complex situations, please contact Lisa Law today. Our professional team is ready to provide thorough assessments and strong support.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

National Housing Bank Launched by Government to Deliver 500,000 homes

The Ministry of Housing, Local Government and Communities has announced the launch of a publicly owned National Housing Bank, which aims to build over 500,000 new homes.

With the UK dealing with a problem-stricken housing sector which includes issues such as millions stuck on social housing waiting lists, a shrinking private rental sector, and the average age of a first-time buyer now at 34, the government has made fixing the housing sector one of their top priorities since coming to power.

Let’s find out more about the National Housing Bank and what it is slated to do.

What is the objective of the National Housing Bank?

A combination of public and private sector investment

Part of the government’s “Plan for Change”, the National Housing Bank will be backed by £16bn worth of public investment. This eye-catching figure is in addition to £6bn of additional investment which has already been allocated this Parliament.

The National Housing Bank will also seek to leverage £53bn of private investment to support the building of 500,000 homes. It will act similarly to a development bank through the use of low-interest loans, guarantees and investment in housing projects.

This partnership with the private sector will add much needed stability and reassurance for housing developers and investors.

Furthermore, the recent £2.5 billion in low-interest loans announced at the recent spending review will also form a core part of the support for the building of social and affordable homes.

Greater Autonomy for Homes England

This new strategy will give Homes England, which is the government’s housing and regeneration agency, greater autonomy to make long-term investments as well as the capability to issue government guarantees directly. The hope is that this will create a more streamlined, efficient system which will accelerate housing delivery.

Collaboration with mayors and local leaders will be encouraged in the form of integrated financial support packages to ensure that housing and regeneration priorities are delivered on across the country. As part of this, an unspecified portion of the £16bn may be allocated to the Greater London Authority or Mayoral Strategic Authorities.

Following the announcement, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner said:

“We‘re turning the tide on the housing crisis we inherited – whether that’s fixing our broken planning system, investing £39 billion to deliver more social and affordable homes, or now creating a National Housing Bank to lever in vital investment.

“This government is delivering reform and investing in Britain’s renewal through our Plan for Change. Our foot is firmly on the accelerator when it comes to making sure a generation is no longer locked out of homeownership – or ensuring children don’t have to grow up in unsuitable temporary accommodation, and instead have the safe and secure home they deserve.”

Our thoughts

The creation of the National Housing Bank represents a serious, substantive attempt to address the UK’s housing crisis. We welcome action taken to bolster the UK’s housing stock and property market, with the aspiration of secure housing currently out of reach for so many people, particularly in London.

The government has set itself a target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of the Parliament, representing 370,000 per year. This is beyond what any government has managed for half a century, so it remains to be seen whether this will be achievable. They will hope that the National Housing Bank can play a crucial role in helping them to achieve this lofty ambition.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

Changes to the Sponsorship Guidance and Future Shift to eVisas for Study and Work Routes

As of 29 May 2025, the Home Office updated its Sponsorship duties guidance and Student and Child Student guidance. From 15 July 2025, further developments are anticipated in how entry clearance is granted for overseas applicants under work and study routes through eVisas. We previously covered how the government’s Immigration White Paper will affect international students more generally, and in this article we will go into more detail about sponsorship guidance as well as student and child student guidance.

We have summarised the key changes made in the new guidance below:

Sponsorship Duties

Record-keeping requirements for Student sponsors are now consolidated within the main Student sponsor guidance;
Retention rules clarified: documents must be kept until 1 year post-sponsorship, or until a compliance officer has signed off, whichever is earlier;
Original passports must not be retained, unless for safekeeping for minors, and they can access passports with parents’/guardians’ consent;
Sponsors must be aware of their data protection obligations under UK regulations;
Sponsors must keep copies of specific documents of each sponsored student, including parental consent letters, which can be in paper or electronic form.

Additional changes

From 31 October 2025, successful applicants under the Student and Child Student routes will receive eVisas, rather than visa vignettes and BRPs;
Student sponsor licences will no longer require renewal;
Enhanced safeguarding and reporting duties for Child Student sponsors:
- Required confirmation of living arrangements at the Confirmation of Acceptance of Studies (CAS) stage;
- Detailed rules around permitted carers/guardians, travel arrangements, and permitted living arrangements;
- Sponsors must report on the Sponsorship Management System non-permitted living arrangements within 10 working days, along with remedial steps.

eVisa rollout for entry clearance

The Home Office has confirmed that from 15 July 2025, applicants under study and work routes applying for entry clearance from abroad may no longer receive a physical visa vignette in their passport. Instead, they will need to:

Create a UKVI account to access their digital eVisa before travelling; and
Follow specific instructions, which will be given at the time of application submission.

Importantly, this does not yet apply to:

Dependants of other visa routes; or
Applicants in non-study/work routes, who will still receive a physical vignette.

At this stage, the guidance remains vague, using the term “may”, and does not confirm the operational changes or logistics involved.

Conclusion

These changes mark a continued shift towards digitisation, simplification, and enhanced compliance oversight. Sponsors, especially educational institutions, must now prepare for stricter safeguarding protocols around Child Student care and documentation. In addition, it would be prudent for them to review and adjust internal compliance policies and training procedures to align with the updated record-keeping and eVisa framework.

For overseas applicants, the gradual phasing out of visa vignettes signals a new era of digital-only travel clearance, though operational clarity is still awaited. Sponsors and employers should monitor updates closely to ensure students and workers arriving after July 2025 are aware of the new eVisa process and prepare accordingly.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc: Remortgage Money Used for Ex-Wife’s Divorce Payments

In a judgment delivered on 4th June 2025, the Supreme Court gave lenders a stark reminder: just because two people borrow together, it does not mean they are borrowing equally, especially when only one of them is cleaning up their tangled finances.

By Wai Ling Chin

Background

The case, Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc, began like many modern lending tales: a couple, a remortgage, and a suspiciously one-sided financial benefit. Ms Waller-Edwards and her then-partner, Mr Bishop, re-mortgaged her home to get £384,000, of which £25,000 would be used to pay off his car and £14,500, his credit card. The remaining money was supposed to allow the couple to make a joint purchase of a buy-to-let. However, Mr Bishop used the loan to make divorce payments to his ex-wife and to pay off the first charge on a property he was building.

When the romance ended, so did the repayment harmony. Ms Waller-Edwards was left living in a heavily mortgaged property, and when they fell into arrears, the bank commenced possession proceedings.

Ms Waller-Edwards argued that she had entered into the re-mortgage under Mr Bishop’s undue influence, and that the bank should have spotted the red flags. After all, it could hardly be considered joint benefit if one party walked away debt-free and the other got stuck with the tab. The question before the court was whether this type of part-borrowing, part-bailout loan required the bank to take extra care.

Decision

The Supreme Court said yes – loudly and clearly. Lady Simler gave the only judgment, declaring that where there is a more than de minimis element of borrowing serving to clear one party’s personal debts, the bank is ‘put on inquiry’. This means that the bank must take extra steps (known as the ‘Etridge protocol’) to make the risk clear to the vulnerable party by having them seek independent legal advice, thus preventing them from being pressured, tricked or guilt-tripped into signing.

The court also rejected the fuzzy ‘fact and degree’ test previously used for such cases. Instead, it adopted a ‘bright line’ test: if the loan benefits one party more than trivially, it is a surety transaction and the bank must act accordingly. There is no room for assumptions – or romantic optimism.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

Welcome Laura, Samson and Louis

As Lisa’s Law Solicitors continues to expand, we recently welcomed three new colleagues to the firm. Laura Zhang and Louis Lim add to our growing Conveyancing department, while Samson Chu joins our Family and Wills and Probate team.

Get to know each of them in the profiles below.

Laura

Laura Zhang is a dedicated legal professional specialising in property law and real estate transactions. She holds a Master of Laws (LLM) from the University of Manchester and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of Birmingham. She also successfully completed the Legal Practice Course (LPC) at the University of Law.

Before joining Lisa’s Law, Laura worked as a court clerk at an Intermediate People’s Court in China and gained experience in various legal fields at a city law firm in the UK. However, she discovered her true passion lies in property law.

In her spare time, Laura enjoys music, fitness, and travelling.

She is fluent in both English and Mandarin.

Louis

Louis holds a University of London LLB External Programme degree from Brickfields Asia College, Malaysia, and is currently completing his Bar Training Course with Professional Legal Studies (Master’s) at BPP University. His legal journey includes working as a Paralegal at A. Vincent Solicitors Ltd for over a year, where he supported immigration, criminal, and civil cases.

Louis was selected for the Bridging the Bar 23/24 Academy Program, enhancing his skills through training and mentorship with experienced barristers. He has also volunteered with Central Law CIC, providing legal guidance to over 30 clients and contributing to outreach efforts that increased the program’s reach.

Additionally, Louis gained valuable courtroom exposure through Judge Marshalling at Manchester Crown Court in January 2023, where he assisted HHJ Suzanne Goddard KC, observing case management, hearings and gaining insights into advocacy and court operations. Louis also did a Mini Pupillage with Jemma Gordon from St John’s Buildings (24th – 26th July 2023), where he observed client engagement, trial advocacy, and the dedication required in the legal profession.

He is fluent in English and Cantonese, and is a native Mandarin speaker.

Samson

Samson Chu joins our burgeoning Family and Wills and Probate team as a legal assistant. He holds an LLB at Queen Mary University of London and an LLM in Legal Practice (with Distinction) from the University of Law, London Moorgate. He recently passed SQE 1 and 2 on his first attempt. Before joining Lisa’s Law, Samson gained valuable legal experience through law firms, pro bono clinics, and in-house legal teams in both London and Hong Kong.

He is fluent in Cantonese, Mandarin, and English.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

Migration Advisory Committee Publishes Family Visa Financial Requirements Review

Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published its report on the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) for family visas. The MAC proposed that the MIR should not be matched to the skilled worker route. They also suggested different calculations that could be used instead for family visa financial requirements and made recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced.

The Report

The Human Impact of the MIR

The report concluded that the MIR, an income threshold which was first introduced in 2012 as £18,600 and in April 2024 was raised to £29,000, has implications for both economic wellbeing and family life, particularly affecting the ability of families to remain together as a family unit. The report considered evidence from organisations, lawyers and individuals and it was observed that the current threshold has led to extended periods of separation for couples, with adverse effects on mental health, relationships, and the development and wellbeing of children.

Problems with the Current Approach

The current MIR is linked to the 25th percentile of earnings for occupations eligible under the skilled worker route. The report highlighted that the use of a threshold based on economic migration benchmarks is misplaced for the partner route, which is designed for enabling family reunification rather than assessing labour market contributions.

The correlation between sponsor income and the future earnings of the non-UK partner was found to be weak, meaning that assessing the applicant’s potential economic impact based solely on the sponsor’s earnings was limited. There are also connected gender-based discrimination issues, since female sponsors may have a higher demand of childcare responsibilities and lower earnings, however the applicant’s prospective income cannot currently be considered.

Proposed Alternatives and Flexibility

Many alternative financial indicators were considered to set an appropriate MIR. Approaches based on living standards were looked at, using measures such as the Minimum Income Standard derived from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Real Living Wage. These measures suggested that an income range between around £23,000 and £28,000 would more effectively support with the necessary living standards and protect families from falling into poverty.

Options based on the financial threshold needed to be ineligible for benefits (with references to Universal Credit eligibility or relative poverty measures) were also considered, with the report stating that such indicators provided a more realistic reflection of the minimum income required to live without dependence on state benefits.

A key conclusion was that a MIR set in the range of £23,000–£25,000 would better balance economic wellbeing and family life, and a higher threshold would reduce the number of applications and lower the cost of migration at the risk of increased hardship for families.

Evidencing income

The MAC’s overall conclusion was that it will be for the government to determine how to prioritise family versus fiscal considerations. The report identified challenges concerning the evidential requirements imposed on sponsors and applicants. The current requirement for sponsors to submit six months of UK payslips can intensify family separation, where a UK-based sponsor has to work here separated from their partner just to build up the right number of payslips.

The difficulties related to capturing self-employment income were highlighted in the report. In the current requirement, self-employment income must be demonstrated over a 12-month period and cannot be combined with cash savings, which was argued to be a rigid requirement. The report suggested that policies should be amended so that cash savings can be counted alongside both employment and self-employment income. This would allow great flexibility in evidencing financial capability, as many applicants have accumulated savings from prior earnings, and would avoid penalising those in self-employment who face timing issues related to tax return filing and income variability.

The report also recommended that the method of evidencing income should be simplified by enabling an approach in which the total income received over a six-month period is annualised, rather than relying on the current rule that multiplies the lowest earning month by a fixed factor. Such a change was suggested in order to protect applicants from adverse outcomes caused by short-term fluctuations in earnings.

Additional Recommendations and Areas for Reform

The report made a recommendation for the Home Office to consider more flexible rules that consider verifiable UK job offers from main applicants. This would allow a more accurate assessment of the actual household income instead of a sole reliance on the sponsor’s earnings. The report states about having different financial thresholds for individual and household income where one or both partners’ income is available to be assessed.

The report also addressed the Adequate Maintenance Requirement (AM), but only from the perspective of partner visas, not other family routes. The report stated that the AM test, originally intended to offer a fairer alternative for applicants in vulnerable circumstances, relies on outdated benefits benchmarks, because Income Support is not a current basis and is being phased out altogether in 2026.

Universal Credit replaced Income Support but involves a number of different components so is not a like for like replacement for Income Support. Various options were presented to update the AM test, including having a new fixed requirement or simply having just the adequate accommodation test, since for the partner route most applicants who receive a qualifying benefit would meet the AM adequate maintenance test anyway.

The report called for improved data collection and standardisation of information, because there were large gaps in the data collected by the Home Office when the MAC came to write this report. MAC opposed to maintaining the current financial requirement aligned with the skilled worker route and has proposed a number of alternative calculation options.

The report makes some useful pragmatic recommendations and pushes for the parent route to allow applications from people who would also be eligible for the partner route, to reduce the harm currently caused to children by family separation. However, some of the financial requirement calculations in the report are not necessarily lower than the current threshold (particularly if the option of ‘household’ income requirements was taken up.

My thoughts

I do believe that changes should be made to financial requirements, as the current financial requirements should reflect the current living standards and national living wage in the UK.

I also believe that changes should be made as to the way the MIR is evidenced. This is to make it easier for applicants to meet the financial requirements.

I do agree that cash savings should be counted alongside both employment and self-employment income. This would allow flexibility in evidencing financial capability, as many applicants have accumulated savings from prior earnings. This would also avoid penalising those in self-employment who face timing issues related to tax return filing and income variability.

If the government accepts the MAC’s proposals for the minimum income requirement, this could result in reduced thresholds for family visas and make it easier to meet the minimum income requirement.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

Post completion fees for buying leasehold residential property

Purchasing a leasehold property often involves lengthy legal procedures that may be unfamiliar, especially for first time buyers. Several post completion fees arise after the purchase has been completed, typically requiring payments to the freeholder or the management company (or their managing agent). This article explores the usual post completion fees associated with buying a leasehold property.

Notice of Assignment and Charge Fee

Most leases specify that the assignee (i.e., the buyer) must serve a Notice of Assignment to the freeholder and/or the management company to formally inform them that the lease has been transferred and that the buyer has become the new tenant. This ensures that the freeholder and/or management company is aware of the change in ownership. Sometimes, the freeholder and management company have separate managing agents, requiring the buyer to serve the Notice of Assignment to each party separately.

If the buyer purchases the property with a mortgage, a Notice of Charge may also be required to notify the freeholder and/or management company of the lender’s interest in the property.

The fees usually cost between £50 – £300 + VAT.

Deed of Covenant Fees

Some leases require the buyer to enter into a Deed of Covenant, pledging to comply with the covenants and conditions set out in the lease after completion. This ensures that the new tenant adheres to obligations such as paying service charges, becoming a member of the management company, and following house rules.

The lease may include a standard form for the Deed of Covenant. Sometimes, the freeholder’s managing agent or management company provides a draft deed or must approve the one prepared by the buyer’s solicitor.

A fee is typically charged for drafting or approving this document. The fees usually cost between £150 – £300 + VAT.

Certificate of Compliance Fees

The leasehold register of the property may include restrictions requiring the freeholder and/or management company’s consent for the transfer. To complete registration at the Land Registry, a Certificate of Compliance is required to lift these restrictions.

The freeholder or management company (or their managing agent/legal representative) will issue the certificate once all lease requirements have been met—such as full payment of service charges and ground rent, and proper service of the Notice of Assignment. Without this certificate, the buyer will be unable to complete title registration with the Land Registry, which can have serious legal and financial consequences.

The freeholder and/or the management company may charge an administrative fee for issuing the certificate of compliance. It usually costs between £150 – £300 + VAT.

Membership Registration Fees

In some cases, the buyer will be required under the lease to become members of a Residents’ Management Company (RMC) or Freehold Management Company (FMC) upon completion of purchase. A membership fee may apply typically £50 – £200 + VAT.

Issuance of Share Certificate Fees

If the buyer is required to hold a share in the Residents’ Management Company, the management company’s agent will issue a share certificate after completion. The leaseholder should keep the original share certificate in safe custody as it will be required when selling the property in the future. A fee may be charged for issuing the share certificate and usually costs £50 – £150 + VAT.

Conclusion

There are several post completion requirements when buying a leasehold property. Buyers are advised to work with experienced solicitors to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to satisfy with all these requirements, protecting their investment and ensuring a smooth property transaction.

Lisa’s Law’s highly experienced conveyancing team will be able to proceed your transactions smoothly and effectively. Contact us today to instruct us on your behalf as part of your leasehold purchase.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Subscribe to our newsletter

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