The following Immigration practice note Produced in partnership with Ellis Wilford of Lamb Building and Eric Fripp of Lamb Building provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
From 9 July 2012, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) adopted a revised approach to the assessment of Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in immigration claims, formulating Immigration Rules which purport to define the circumstances under which an Article 8 family or private life claim will, or will not, succeed under the Immigration Rules. These codifying provisions, set out in the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 194, came into general effect on 9 July 2012. They initially were purported to provide a comprehensive code for the consideration of Article 8 claims, but that position in its strongest form was rejected by courts and tribunals and gradually abandoned by the government. These Immigration Rules have been amended on a number of occasions. A particularly important group of changes applicable since 10 August 2017 was accomplished by Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 290. The 2017 changes include both: (i) an apparent attempt to enable broad, fact-sensitive proportionality assessment within rather than without the Immigration Rules in the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, paras GEN.3.1 and GEN.3.2 and (ii) express acknowledgement by new the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, para GEN 3.3 of the duty to consider, in the Article 8 context, the best interests of any affected children.
The codification of Article 8 considerations in the Immigration Rules has
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Coronavirus (COVID-19): The guidance detailing normal practice set out in this Practice Note may be affected by measures concerning process and procedure in the civil courts that have been introduced as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For guidance, see Practice Note: Coronavirus
Fraud by false representationFraud by false representation applies to a broader range of conduct than the offences under the preceding legislation (the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)). No gain or loss need actually be made, and no deception need operate on the mind of the deceived for the Fraud Act 2006
An intention to create legal relations is requiredThere are various situations in which a court will hold that an agreement is not binding because, though supported by consideration, it was made without any intention of creating legal relations (see, eg, Blue v Ashley).Did the parties intend to
Brexit: The UK's departure from the EU on exit day, ie Friday 31 January 2020, has implications for practitioners considering service out of the jurisdiction. For guidance, see: Cross border considerations—checklist—Service—Brexit specific.This Practice Note explains when an acknowledgment of
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.