Q&As

The Q&As in this subtopic seek to address common questions faced when dealing with Public Law matters.

The Q&As supplement and link to further reading, but are intentionally short. It is anticipated that a brief Q&A will be most helpful when you need a quick overview of an issue and its likely impact. This might arise, for example, for lawyers needing to provide advice, business development or training at short notice.

The Q&A content is date stamped. This date provided is the original publication date and the Q&A states the law on that date.

If you have not been able

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Public Law News

Immigration—Windrush—non-fettering public law principle—section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 (Hippolyte v SSHD)

Immigration analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal of the High Court’s refusal of judicial review in respect of the respondent Secretary of State’s refusal to grant the applicant indefinite leave to remain (ILR) under the Windrush Scheme. The Home Office’s casework guidance states that the child of a Commonwealth citizen who was settled in the UK before 1 January 1971 must have been continuously resident in the UK since their birth or arrival to qualify under the scheme. The applicant asked the Secretary of State to exercise discretion to waive this requirement, as she had sufficient close ties to the UK that she fell within the ‘spirit’ of the Windrush Scheme. The Home Office failed to consider whether to exercise discretion and the appellant argued that the Home Office had fettered its discretion. The case concerned two key issues: (1) whether the Secretary of State contravened the ‘non-fettering’ principle in public law by failing to exercise her discretion under section 3(1)(b) Immigration Act 1971, which confers a wide discretion on the Home Office to grant leave even where the requirements of the Immigration Rules or published policy guidance are not met, and (2) whether the High Court was wrong to refuse relief under section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), which applies where it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. Written by Gill McKearney, knowledge lawyer at Bates Wells.

View Public Law by content type :

Popular documents