header-logo header-logo

23 June 2017
Issue: 7751 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424, [2017] All ER (D) 75 (Jun)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant Pakistani national’s asylum seeker’s appeal in relation to a dismissal by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) of an application for judicial review on the basis that there was an alternative remedy by way of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The UT had erred in deciding that the existence of an alternative remedy was not determinative in the exercise of discretion. Cumulatively, the circumstances meant that it not only could but should have gone on to determine the jurisdiction issue itself. It could have done so while still maintaining that in general the jurisdiction issue should be determined in the first instance by the FTT.

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