header-logo header-logo

26 June 2015
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and others [2015] EWHC 1689 (Admin), [2015] All ER (D) 133 (Jun)

The claimant charity issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the fast track rules (FTRs) contained in the Schedule to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/2604), were ultra vires. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the FTRs were ultra vires. What made the FTRs structurally unfair was the serious procedural disadvantage which came from the abbreviated timetable and curtailed case management powers, together with the imposition of that disadvantage on the appellant by the respondent to the appeal.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll