Slanderous claims result in privacy injunction in recent private law child proceedings!

Using our voice and expressing our opinion is a right that everyone in the UK, and most of the world, often take for granted. Communication plays a key role in a healthy and successful life, and in most circumstances creates positive and interesting dialogues between people, allowing us to think in different ways, learn new things, and create important debates.

However, problems arise when people use their voice to spread hurtful misinformation, where the sole aim is to damage reputations via deceitful claims. When this is the case, the courts have the power to grant what is known as a privacy injunction. This is what today’s article will revolve around, and we will look at a recent case to further explore this topic.

What is a privacy injunction?

A privacy injunction is a civil court order that stops a person from doing a specific act, or conversely requires them to do something that they previously had not been doing. Injunctions are often granted to prevent the publication of private, confidential, slanderous or simply false information. In today’s article we will be looking at its usage in order to prevent inaccurate, defamatory information that was spread with the intention of negatively affecting people’s private and professional lives.

Consequences of ignoring privacy injunctions are treated very seriously. A breach of an injunction can be punishable as a contempt of Court which can potentially lead to imprisonment.

The case in question: X (a child acting by her Children’s Guardian) v Y and another

The background of this particular case is as followed: X was born in 2017, and the parents split up the same year. X lived with both parents under shared childcare arrangements.

Following this, the father, mother and new guardian of X entered legal proceedings over inflicted injuries, whereby the father expressed a number of concerns with respect to injuries to X. X was examined by a GP on 6 July 2018. On 7 July 2018 the father alleged that X exhibited bruising. While the GP confirmed evidence of bruising, the results of the examination were inconclusive, and both parents began to blame the other for the injuries, and a local childcare authority got involved.

As hearings continued, the father began to show up less and less and did not attend the final hearing. The father then began to use Facebook to publicly discuss the case, naming those involved and using derogatory language against them. He also contacted media outlets about the situation, and displayed a sign on his car referencing the mother, guardian, social workers and the judge who were involved in the case, all of which used defamatory language and unfounded extreme allegations.

What did the court decide?

The courts granted a privacy injunction which disallowed the father from posting material on social media regarding those involved in the case and required him to remove any previous posts. He was also made to remove the sign from his car.

This decision was made on the basis of lack of evidence of the claims being made by the father and the extremity of these claims. For example, the judge ruled that the X’s guardian had done nothing to warrant the criticism of the father, and such allegations were likely to affect their private and professional life.

Also, the fact that the father had not attended the original or the adjourned final hearing, and failed to follow any formal complaint procedures before acting on social media did not stand him in good stead with the courts.

What do we think?

As a law firm we understand the complex nature of family disputes, and the emotional turmoil it can put people through. In terms of the father’s initial behaviour, whereby he officially registered his anxiety about bruising on X, this is perfectly reasonable. We support people immediately contacting authorities relating to issues of abuse and violence, or any other criminal behaviour. This is what authorities are there for. However, the slanderous behaviour and unfounded allegations are only ever going to end one way, and this case solidifies the notion that taking things into your own hands can often be counter-productive. A privacy injunction will often be utilised in cases such as this, as it is an effective tool to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation.

Have questions? We are here for you!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Refugee Resettlement – How does it work and what is the UK government doing to aid Afghan refugees?

As the situation in Afghanistan has forced many civilians out of their homes the UK’s refugee resettlement policies have once again been cast into the limelight. In this article we will take a look at the current policies the Home Office has in place for people who find themselves in this unfortunate situation, and analyse what has been said in terms of the UK’s plan to allow Afghan refugees into the country.

Resettlement schemes offered by the UK

The UK operates three resettlement schemes: The UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS), Community Sponsorship Scheme, and Mandate Resettlement Scheme. These schemes act as the foundations which allow the UK to play a supporting role in humanitarian crisis, to try and help save lives and get people to a safer environment than what is available in their country of origin. The Home Office is informed, within these schemes, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which is the internationally recognised and UN mandated agency for dealing with refugees.

While the resettlement schemes in the UK have come under some criticism in the past, in Home Office claims to not be bias against anyone because of potential employability or successful integration predictions.

UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS)

Under this route, the UK will offer legal and safe passage to refugees who fit into the following categories:

Legal and/or Physical Protection Needs;

Survivors of Violence and/or Torture;

Have Medical Needs;

Women and Girls at Risk;

Family Reunification;

Children and Adolescents at Risk;

Lack of Foreseeable Alternative Durable Solutions

The amount of people the UK takes in under this scheme is determined by available funding and local authorities’ capacity for supporting refugees.

Unaccompanied children will always be prioritised, and will be reunified with their parents as soon as possible.

Community Sponsorship Scheme

This scheme is pretty much how it sounds, where people directly support and welcome a resettled family into their local community. It is a very pleasant concept and scheme which shows the value and life changing potential of human decency.

Community Sponsorship is accessible to refugees under the same criteria as the UKRS, set out in the bullet points above.

Mandate Resettlement Scheme

The Mandate Resettlement Scheme is a global scheme and resettles recognised refugees with a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. However, in the same sense as the previous schemes, these refugees must be assessed by the UNHCR before being eligible.

Security checks

Like with any immigration routes, those wanting to come to the UK will have to undergo security checks, which are handled by the UNHCR. Red flags that may hinder or delay a person’s successful entry to the UK could be:

military service;

involvement with the government authorities including any arrests or periods

of detention;

past involvement in the conflict they are fleeing from;

links to terrorism/extremism;

certain occupations;

travel history.

How are refugees allocated to certain areas?

For the UKRS, refugees are matched to a local authority that can provide suitable accommodation and the appropriate support for those being resettled, through the regional Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP). Refugees are matched to a local authority that can provide suitable accommodation and the appropriate support for those being resettled.

Through Community Sponsorship, refugees are allocated to a suitable community group who has been formally approved as a sponsor. Local authorities must consent to each Community Sponsorship application and agree to the group accepting the proposed refugee family.

Refugees resettled through the Mandate Resettlement Scheme are accommodated and supported by a family member living in the UK.

Arrival in the UK

An arrivals team will arrange for families resettled through the UKRS and Community Sponsorship Scheme to travel to the UK six to eight weeks after they have been allocated accommodation (depending on the host country exit permit process). This may be on a scheduled or chartered flight. There will also be an escort to accompany families to the UK and they will be greeted by representatives from their receiving local authority or community sponsor group on arrival.

Further support

Health care support, travel arrangements and cultural orientation are all elements that the Home Office can support refugees with. For example, if a refugee has a health issue appropriate support will be given to them. Likewise, if forms have to be filled in or biometric information has to be taken, staff will be available to help make sure it is all done correctly.

Also, all adults arriving through the UKRS and Community Sponsorship Scheme anywhere in the UK should receive a minimum of eight hours’ English language tuition a week in their first year.

The Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme

In light of the recent situation in Afghanistan, the Home Office has announced it will launch an Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme.

At present, the scheme is said to welcome up to 5,000 vulnerable Afghans to the UK, who have been forced to flee the country, in its first year, with up to a total of 20,000 in the long-term.

What do we think?

We believe that it is the duty of every country and government to offer safety to those who can no longer remain in their own country due to conflict or persecution. The three standard resettlement schemes in place in the UK do a decent job as a backbone for allowing such action to take place. Of course, the security measures in place are necessary, but we wonder if there is a way to streamline the process more, so that when such severe situations arise like the current goings on in Afghanistan, help can be accessed quicker.

The Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme is a good start, and we hope that many people will benefit from it. As time goes by, we would not be surprised if it becomes necessary for the UK to home more than the 20,000 limit they have initially set for the long-term plan.

Have questions? We are here for you!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Furlough Frenzy! What is considered unfair in terms of employee dismissal during the pandemic, and what can we learn from two cases with very different outcomes?

Navigating the often uncomfortable realm of employee dismissal has long since been a challenge for employers. Of course, employers do not seek out the chance to dismiss workers, as it often results in administrative as well as social awkwardness for them, but it can unfortunately be a necessity.

People losing their jobs is one of the main fallouts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and many actions were taken by the government to try and limit this as much as possible. One of the more prevalent ways of achieving this was the Job Retention Scheme (also known as the furlough scheme).

What we will look at today in this article are the outcomes of two separate cases which both involve the Job Retention Scheme, with employment tribunals taking different stands on whether the respective claimants have been treated unfairly or not by their employers. The different outcomes highlight the fact that there is still some confusion when it comes to this scheme, and that what may be considered just for one person may be considered unjust for the next.

Reminder on the Job Retention Scheme

Furloughing essentially means an employee’s job is put on hold. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme has allowed firms to put employees on furlough, meaning they do not work but still get paid by the employer with money provided by the state.

The government has been covering up to 80% of the employee’s wage (up to a maximum of £2,500 per month), and then the employer has had the option to add the extra 20% if they wish, but they do not have to.

It is a grant, not a loan. This means whatever is granted does not have to be repaid. The scheme is due to be entirely phased out by September 2021.

The first case: Mhindurwa v Lovingangels Care Limited

What makes Mhindurwa v Lovingangels Care Limited significant to our article today is the fact that an employment tribunal ruled that the claimant HAD been treated unfairly by her employer due to the fact that they had not considered the option of furloughing her.

To give a background to this case the claimant, Ms Mhindurwa, was working as a care assistant, providing live-in care to a vulnerable person until they were moved into a care home. She fulfilled this role from October 2018 to February 2020. In May of 2020 she requested to be furloughed to which her employer refused, saying that there was no longer any work for Ms Mhindurwa. She was then given a redundancy payment along with a notice of dismissal.

Ms Mhindurwa, after appealing first to her employer to no avail, took the case to an employment tribunal. In her opinion she should have been put on furlough instead of being made redundant.

Fortunately for her, the employment tribunal agreed with her. They found that she had been unfairly dismissed for two reasons. The first was to do with Ms Mhindurwa’s, original appeal which was found to be too quickly dismissed by the employer, who did not attempt to see things from his employee’s point of view.

The second reason is to do with the wide availability of the Job Retention Scheme. It was found that a reasonable employer would have at least given consideration to whether the claimant should be furloughed to avoid being dismissed on grounds of redundancy. The fact that the furlough scheme was set up for situations exactly like the one presented in this case meant that there was little reason for the employer to deny Ms Mhindurwa’s request to be furloughed, and the employer offered no good reason to the contrary.

The second case: Mr. M Handley v Tatenhill Aviation Limited

While in the previous case the employment tribunal saw fit to agree with the claimant, in this second case the reverse occurred. It was found that an employee, who had been supported by the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, was not unfairly dismissed because the employer chose to make him redundant even though they could have chosen to furlough him for longer.

This time, the claimant, Mr Handley, worked for a private airfield, where he gave flying lessons and flight experiences to customers. Shortly after the first lockdown, due to a massive decline in business, the airfield worked for, Tatenhill Aviation, closed the flying school and placed Mr Handley on furlough for a three week period, or until he could return to work as normal.

Due to profits being down since before the pandemic, the airfield had already been considering redundancies, and on August 10^th 2020 Mr Handley was chosen to be made redundant. He rebuked this by stating he had been put on furlough and that the terms of the furlough scheme meant his employer could not make him redundant.

The employment tribunal chose to dismiss Mr Handley’s claim, due to the fact that the final decision to furlough someone or extend that furlough rests in the hands of the business itself, not an Employment Tribunal. It was further deemed to be reasonable that to cut some costs elsewhere in the business the redundancy was a viable option to the business and therefore not unjust.

What can we learn from these two cases?

The two cases, while similar in terms of both being linked to the furlough scheme, have some important differences which lead to their contrasting outcomes. We can learn from them that where furlough is not even considered by an employer, redundancy as an alternative may be viewed as unfair, as procedurally the employer has failed to take all the relevant options into consideration. Due to the harsh outcomes redundancy brings, it should be the last step an employer can take. Whereas an employer has done so, the decision whether to extend an employee’s furlough will rest within the hands of the company itself, as it is shown in the second case.

The important issue that we can take away is that employment tribunals will always look at the steps taken in the run up to the redundancy, not just at the redundancy itself. We can see from these two cases that the way the employers handled their respective situations were very different, with one having far more reasonable grounds to dismiss their employee than the other, after having carefully considering the potential outcomes of that redundancy.

What we offer in terms of advice for employers thinking about making redundancies is to always consider the options available to you, rather than making a split decision in haste. This will always work out better for employees and employers and makes for a more reasonable conclusion for all involved, where a more favourable outcome may become clear.

Have questions? We are here for you!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

The Role of Certificates of Sponsorship: Home Office to Profit from struggling music industry?

It is no secret that the music and entertainment industries were hit extremely hard by coronavirus. With venues closing, shows being cancelled and travel restrictions being put in place, it is fair to say that many aspects of this lucrative market ground to a halt.

Now that restrictions are slowly being lifted, those who work in this industry are trying to get things back up and running so that events can go ahead in the coming months. However, there is a hurdle they must overcome in relation to immigration: Certificates of Sponsorship.

What is a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS)?

A CoS can be thought of in relation to most businesses, not only those in the music industry. It is essentially a document which organisations issue to workers to allow them to work here in the UK, within certain requirements. There are different kinds of sponsorships, such as the Worker License and the Temporary Worker License.

A ‘Worker’ licence will let you employ people long-term or permanently. It is split into:

Skilled Worker – the role must meet the job suitability requirements

Intra-company visas – this includes Intra-company Transfer and Intra-company Graduate Trainee, for multinational companies which need to transfer established employees or graduate trainees to the UK

Minister of Religion – for people coming to work for a religious organisation

Sportsperson – for elite sportspeople and coaches who will be based in the UK

A ‘Temporary Worker’ licence will let you employ people on a temporary basis. It is split into:

Creative or Sporting Worker – to work as a high-level sportsperson (up to 1 year), entertainer or artist (up to 2 years)

Charity Worker – for unpaid workers at a charity (up to 1 year)

Religious Worker – for those working in a religious order or organisation (2 years)

Government Authorised Exchange Worker – work experience (1 year), research projects or training, for example practical medical or scientific training (2 years) to enable a short-term exchange of knowledge

International Agreement Worker – where the worker is coming to do a job which is covered by international law, for example employees of overseas governments

Seasonal Worker – for those coming to the UK for up to 6 months to do farm work

How does this affect the music industry?

Most live music and entertainment companies will have a sponsor licence that allows them to issue temporary work visas to artists, allowing them to legally perform in the UK. The amount of sponsorships each company needs is often directly dependant on how many they used the previous year.

Normally, this would be a reasonable method of distribution. However, due to the pandemic most venues did not use any sponsorships as no shows were able to take place. This means that for this year, companies are not being issued as many sponsorships as they need and in some cases they are being issued none at all.

To remedy this issue, companies are having to request they be allocated these sponsorships so that they can arrange events. To make matters more complicated, it may be hard to tell how many sponsorships they are going to need as the coronavirus situation is not completely cleared up yet.

Home Office tried to profit off a situation they created?

The Home Office released guidance saying that if organizers pay them a fee of £200 they will administer the sponsorships in one working week, fixing the issue. This seems unreasonable because the only reason the companies were not allocated sponsorships in the first place was due to the coronavirus, not their own shortcomings, and it was the Home Office that decided to punish them by providing zero contracts the following year. To charge £200 to reinstate the sponsorships is simply profiteering.

Backlash forces Home Office to retract fees

After receiving complaints from industry leaders, and some negative press, the Home Office has now moved away from charging businesses for reinstating these sponsorships, and has said that any who already paid this £200 fee can apply for a refund.

What do we think?

It has always been the Home Office’s statement that immigration should benefit economy, rather than benefiting from it. It is interesting to see the dramatic development of this issue. All areas of the economy have suffered a heavy blow from the pandemic. It is more urgent now than ever that the Home Office should cut down its red tape and streamline the worker sponsoring system so that companies can recruit workers they need to re-ignite the economy.

What we would say to those who may be affected by this, and who have still got zero sponsorships is to try and act as quickly as possible to rectify the situation, as it is unlikely that anyone from the Home Office will reach out to you first. If you need help, our specialist business immigration team is ready to stand by your side and provide any assistance you will need for your business. Alternatively, you can also do this by emailing the Sponsor Change of Circumstances team here.

Have questions? We are here for you!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Xinlei!

We are so pleased to announce Xinlei Zhang as the newest member of the Lisa’s Law family, joining us as a Paralegal. She has been so brilliant since joining and we know she will be a great asset to the firm.

Xinlei has already qualified as a lawyer in China and is in the last phase of the Qualified Lawyer Transfer Scheme, which will allow her to become a qualified solicitor in England and Wales.

Xinlei holds a Master of Law degree in International Business and Corporate Law from Lancaster University and also has achieved a dual-degree in Bachelor of Law and Bachelor of Business Administration from China University of Geosciences Beijing.

Xinlei previously worked at Dentons LLP as a qualified lawyer, during which she was extensively involved in a broad range of major corporate projects such as insolvency & debt reconstruction and pre- acquisition due diligence. She also has experience working as an in-house legal counsel for ENGIE’s China Business Unit.

In her spare time Xinlei enjoys travelling and being outdoors. She is also passionate about growing her on fruits and vegetables.

Have questions? We are here for you!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Angel!

We are so thrilled to announce that Angel Yeung has joined us as a Paralegal, and has been excellent from the get go!

Angel obtained her LLB degree from East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai and pursued her Master’s studies at University of Bristol in 2018. Also, she is going to graduate from her LPC program at University of Law in the coming weeks.

Before joining Lisa’s Law, she had been dealing with international clients and gained experience in the field of trademark, corporate, conveyancing and immigration law in both China and the UK.

In her spare time, Angel enjoys cooking at home, playing sports with friends during weekends and travelling.

Angel speaks Mandarin, Cantonese and English fluently.

Need legal advice? We are here to help!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Obtaining status in the UK via deceptive means? It could come back to haunt you!

Having the right to remain in the UK indefinitely can be a goal for a lot of people who wish to call the country their home. It can be a fairly long process, taking 3, 5 or even 10 years before applicants can be considered eligible. It may seem like a long while, but the eventual benefits can be just reward for putting the time in, as in most cases indefinite leave to remain (ILR) will entitle those who achieve it to stay in the UK permanently, without fear of being questioned in the future regarding their immigration status.

The temptation of this can lead some people to rely on deceptive measures in order to trick the Home Office into granting them ILR. This may come in the form of lying about their age, country of origin or immigration history. It must be held that this behaviour will often land such applicants in some serious trouble if they are caught out, and could affect their future in the UK forever.

In this article we will look at how ILR can be revoked, following this up with a real case study which can give us some clear insight into this issue.

Quick reminder on Indefinite Leave to Remain

Indefinite Leave to Remain is essentially how it sounds. It is where someone has earned the right to stay in the UK permanently, with no concern of a time limit on their ability to remain. There are many benefits to ILR, including the right to work in the UK, access healthcare and benefits, and choose to study here too.

There are various ways to achieve ILR, with the most common being the 5 year residency route, where a person has been in the UK legally under a visa (such as a skilled work visa, spouse visa, investor visa, ancestry visa and many more).

Other ways include the 10 year route, which is where person who has lived in the UK for 10 years continuously can apply for ILR on the ground of ‘long residence’ as long as all time spent in the UK during the 10 years has been lawful, and they have not left the UK for more than 540 calendar days in total (18 months), or more than 180 calendar days (6 months) at one time.

10 year route also happens where a person has lived in the UK continuously with a discretionary leave to remain.

There are other less common routes, which are possible if the circumstances are correct, but these tend to be the usual paths towards ILR.

How can ILR be revoked?

There are a few ways in which ILR can be revoked, but for the purposes of this article we will focus on ILR being revoked due to deception.

Section 76(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke a person’s indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK where a person has obtained indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK by deception, meaning they have submitted falsified or misleading information, or omitted certain facts during their application process.

Deception can come in many guises in these circumstances, such as a person lying about any criminal convictions they have had, financial or tax history, what country they are from or other immigration history. The important factor is that the deceit must be deliberately instigated by the applicant and play a role in the final decision to grant them ILR.

Deception can sometimes be overlooked in certain circumstances

Occasionally, the Home Office will overlook cases of deception relating to ILR, but only in very particular situations. Each decision will be made based on the facts of individual cases; there is no single rule or set of guidelines, but rather a judgement based on many factors.

For example, if the deception is found out a long time after it initially occurred, and the applicant has been in the UK for many years since, the deception may be overlooked. In terms of real life cases, there seems to be a timescale of around the 5 year mark, but deceptions that occurred over 5 years ago do sometimes lead to ILR being revoked.

Extreme circumstances, such as being a victim or human trafficking, severe trauma, or suffering mental health issues may lead to certain deceptions being overlooked – but this is not always the case.

Finally, in cases where honest mistakes have been made on the part of the applicant, allowances are sometimes taken into consideration. For example, getting a date slightly wrong, misspelling a name or place, or other such things may be overlooked as long as the Home Office is happy to accept that it is not part of a wider deception. Making a genuine mistake does not equate to acting in a deceitful manner.

Again, it is essential to remember that each case is judged individually, and using deception should be avoided at all costs, because as we will learn from a recent case, revocation of ILR does happen and it is not a small matter.

Let’s look at a recent case: R (on the application of Matusha) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (revocation of ILR policy)

The case R (on the application of Matusha) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (revocation of ILR policy) concerns an applicant, having been granted ILR via the Legacy Programme, who faced having his ILR revoked by the Secretary of State due to deception.

The issue started when the applicant was found to actually be a citizen on Albania, yet he claimed to be from Kosovo on his ILR application, and had entered the UK illegally in 1999. He had also claimed to be 2 years younger than he actually was.

The applicant maintained this falsified identity when applying for naturalisation in the UK in 2013, despite the Secretary of State finding that he was likely an Albanian citizen after conducting checks on the applicant while assessing his request for naturalisation. This dynamic continued, with the Secretary of State requesting proof of his identity, which was never given.

As a result of this, the Secretary refused the applicant’s application for naturalisation with reference to the good character requirement, finding that his behaviour was to the contrary of good character. Then, on 15 August 2019, the Secretary of State revoked the ILR granted to the applicant on 12 August 2010, on the basis that it had been obtained through deception.

We can look at this from various angles. On the one hand, the deception took place a long time ago, whereby some would see it reasonable for it to be overlooked as the applicant had been in the UK for many years after it occurred. Some people may consider the revocation unfair when looking at it from this perspective.

However, from another angle, the applicant’s deception as to nationality and age would have been directly material to the grant of ILR in the first place. The deception was thought through, intentional and completely instigated by the applicant. While recognising that the deception had occurred more than five years ago, the Secretary of State concluded that the deception had been sufficiently serious to waive this factor. Plus, with the applicant refusing to come clean after significant evidence had been found against him concerning his country of origin, this only served to dig himself a deeper hole.

What do we think?

From this case, we can see that using deceptive means is never the correct way to go about gaining entrance and leave to remain in the UK. If a link is found between deception and a decision made on behalf of an applicant, it can quite easily be found out down the line. Plus, as we learn in this recent case, the guidance can be bended by the Home Office. It is not as though the 5 year mark is a magical goal where, if reached, there is a protective shield around the deceiver. They can quite easily still revoke your leave to remain and leave you stranded outside of the UK.

Have questions? We are here for you!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Better late than never! How can those who missed the deadline for the EU Settlement Scheme still apply, and what are the requirements?

The EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), many of you will know, was set up in response to Brexit to allow EU, non-EU EEA and Swiss citizens and their eligible family members to apply to enter or continue to stay in the UK before the end of the Brexit transition period the opportunity to protect their residence in the UK after this period had ended. The official deadline to get on the scheme was 30 June 2021.

However, the purpose of this article is not to repeat information relating to the EUSS, as we have covered this topic well in such previous as A Clearance of the Past? – How Can You Benefit From the EU Settlement Scheme? and EU Settlement Scheme – Coronavirus related absences to be overlooked by Home Office? This article concerns those who missed the deadline of the EUSS and what options there are available in terms of late or alternative applications.

Later deadlines apply to some people

For some people, the deadline of 30 June 2021 did not apply. This is true if you are one of the following:

the family member of someone from the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein who was living here by 31 December 2020, and you joined them in the UK on or after 1 April 2021

applying for your child, who was born or adopted in the UK on or after 1 April 2021

the family member of an eligible person of Northern Ireland, but they could not move back to the UK by 31 December 2020 without you – you must be from outside the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein

exempt from immigration control, or you stopped being exempt from immigration control after 30 June 2021

here with limited leave to enter or remain in the UK (for example, if you are here on a work or study visa) which expired after 30 June 2021

a family member of a British citizen who you lived with in the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein – you must have lived with them in that country by 30 December 2020, and returned to the UK with them

When do such people need to apply?

If you are applying as a family member to join someone in the UK, you have 90 days to apply from when you arrive in the UK. This only applies if you join them in the UK on or after 1 April 2021. If you joined them before that date, your deadline to apply was 30 June 2021.

If you are applying for your child who was born or adopted in the UK on or after 1 April 2021, you have 90 days from when they were born or adopted. If they were born or adopted in the UK before that date, your deadline to apply was 30 June 2021.

If you are the family member of an eligible person of Northern Ireland, and they could not move back to the UK without you by 31 December 2020, you have 90 days to apply from when you arrive in the UK.
If you are exempt from immigration control, you do not have to apply to the scheme. If you choose to do so, you can apply at any time. If you stop being exempt, you will have 90 days to apply.

If you have limited leave to enter or remain in the UK which expires after 30 June 2021, you must apply before your leave expires.

If you are applying as a family member of a British citizen who you lived with in the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein, you must apply by 29 March 2022.

It is important that potential applicants find out the deadline that applies to their precise situation, as it is not a one size fits all matter. We are here to answer any questions you may have regarding this issue.

Reasonable grounds for late applications

If the original deadline would have applied to you in regular circumstances, there are some circumstances that will be considered reasonable and allow you to continue to apply even after the relevant deadline if you have missed it.

For example:

where a parent, guardian or Local Authority has failed to apply on behalf of a child

where a person has or had a serious medical condition, which meant they were unable to apply by the relevant deadline (this may include both mental and physical health issues).

where someone is a victim of modern slavery or is in an abusive relationship

where someone is isolated, vulnerable or did not have the digital skills to access the application process. For more information regarding vulnerable people and the EU Settlement Scheme, see our article EU Settlement Scheme – Do not fall through the cracks!

where a person was unable to apply by the relevant deadline for compelling practical or compassionate reasons – including in light of the coronavirus pandemic

Once again, this list is not extensive and it is likely that other scenarios may render late applications reasonable. It is always worth talking through your situation with a legal advisor. In any case, the sooner an application is made the better.

What do we think?

We are pleased to see that these allowances are being made for alternative and late applicants. The EUSS was notoriously confusing and many people were vague on its details and requirements. It is understandable that many people missed the deadline, and to punish them for it would be immoral. Where vulnerable people are concerned, we are of the opinion that more support should have been offered by the Home Office in the first place. While there were some advertisements regarding the scheme, over the radio and occasionally the television, these were few and far between and did not cater towards vulnerable individuals. For something so important, you would think more advice and support would have been readily available.

Have questions? We are here for you!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Alex!

We have been growing steadily over the past couple of years, and with an ever expanding client list comes the need for more excellent lawyers to deliver the quality legal service that we are known for!

So, without further ado let us introduce Alex Yang, the latest member of the Lisa’s Law family!

Alex qualified as a solicitor in 2020 after successfully passing his Qualified Lawyer Transfer Scheme exams. He is also a qualified attorney in the State of California after completing his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Alex practised commercial and civil litigation in California and US federal courts before joining Lisa’s Law. He is looking forward to using his vast prior experience to deliver a fantastic service to our clients, while also building on his own legal knowledge here in the UK.

Alex speaks fluent English, Mandarin, and Cantonese. In his spare time, Alex enjoys cooking, swimming, and playing keyboard with The Usual Suspects, an all-lawyer cover band at his church.

Welcome aboard, Alex!

Need legal advice? We are here to help!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Wrongful vs Unfair Dismissal: What is the difference and what role does ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance play?

Wrongful or unfair dismissal is a reality of employment, one that the majority of people do not have to go through, but for those that do face it will know well enough how stressful it can be. While the two may sound similar, they are in fact very different.

In this article we will explore the difference between wrongful and unfair dismissal and the compensation claimants can receive from being dismissed. We will also look at a real case which can inform us on the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, which is very important when talking about these issues.

Wrongful Dismissal vs Unfair Dismissal

Wrongful dismissal is rooted in the breaching of employment contracts, specifically the contractual obligations of the employer. There is no particular length of service that an employee must have had completed to be able to bring up a claim of wrongful dismissal.

On the other hand, unfair dismissal revolves around the employer’s reason for dismissing their employee and how the employer conducted themselves during the process of such a dismissal. The employee must have served for two years under the employment to have the right to apply for unfair dismissal.

The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures

The Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures is the minimum an employer should follow for handling these kinds of issues in the workplace – it acts as the base guidelines. A failure to follow the Code does not automatically make a person or organisation liable to proceedings, however, employment tribunals will take the Code into account when considering relevant cases.

For example, tribunals are liable to award claimants with financial awards when employers are found to be in breach of the Code.

Full details of the code can be found here, but to give an idea of what it involves, see the below points:

Employers and employees should raise and deal with issues promptly and should not unreasonably delay meetings, decisions or confirmation of those decisions.

Employers and employees should act consistently.

Employers should carry out any necessary investigations, to establish the facts of the case.

Employers should inform employees of the basis of the problem and give them an opportunity to put their case in response before any decisions are made.

Employers should allow employees to be accompanied at any formal disciplinary or grievance meeting.

Employers should allow an employee to appeal against any formal decision made.

In a recent case the Employment Appeals Tribunal concluded that breaches of ACAS’s Code of conduct on Disciplinary and Grievance process exists independently of any findings an employment tribunal may have found and can lead to an uplift or reduction in any award to be made.

Let’s look at the case

In Brown v Veolia ES (UK) Ltd, the claimant was employed as a Business Development Manager. She was suspended and then dismissed for gross misconduct related to bullying. In response to this, the claimant pursued a case of both unfair and wrongful dismissal.

As the case progressed, the employment tribunal dismissed the notion of unfair dismissal, but upheld that of wrongful dismissal. The fact that the unfair dismissal aspect of the situation was seen to be just was that the reason came down to conduct issues on the part of the claimant. It was found that the dismissing party had enough grounds to successfully follow through in this regard.

However, the claimant’s plea for wrongful dismissal was agreed to by the tribunal for a few reasons. Firstly, it was found that while the claimant had been guilty of misconduct, she had not committed gross misconduct within the meaning of the respondent’s relevant policy, thus leaving potential room for debate in terms of the misconduct itself in the context of this particular organisation. Furthermore, the respondent was found to be in breach of the ACAS Code of conduct on Disciplinary and Grievance. This was because they had not allowed the claimant enough time to prepare a rebuttal nor had she been allowed to call witnesses to bolster her argument.

Unfortunately, as the breach of ACAS code is relevant to the issue of fairness and the Employment Tribunal had ruled that the Claimant was not dismissed unfairly, the Employment Tribunal concluded that the breach of ACAS code did not entitle the Claimant an uplift. The Claimant appealed against two of the Employment Tribunal’s rulings: there was no unfair dismissal and that there should be no uplift for breach of the ACAS code.

At the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), it was held that breaches of ACAS codes on disciplinary and Grievance is capable of existing independently of the Tribunal’s other findings. The fact that there may not be any procedural unfairness in the employer’s investigation process does not necessarily mean that the Claimant is not entitled to an uplift, as soon as the Tribunal has found that the ACAS codes are breached.

Further, the EAT also held that breach of ACAS codes carries penal consequences. It held that the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair as well in this particular case.

What do we think?

This case highlights the importance of the relevant ACAS codes, as they provide guidance for parties to act reasonably and fairly. Each party is requested to adhere to the provision of the codes; otherwise, there will be sanction, irrespective of whether the wrongdoing party is the employer or employee.

Need some legal advice? We are here to help!

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 info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

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.