This Practice Note covers applications for leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules, including information to inform decisions about which application procedure to use, how to approach validity issues and challenging refusal decisions. Key resources at a glance Resource type Reference Legislation Section 3(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971) Application forms UK visa and immigration application forms (collection) Fee waiver application form Requesting a fee waiver (GOV.UK) Home Office guidance Leave outside the Immigration Rules: caseworker guidance Discretionary leave: caseworker guidance Human rights claims on medical grounds: caseworker guidance Chapter 08–appendix FM family members: caseworker guidance Family life (as a partner or parent) and exceptional circumstances Private life: caseworker guidance Requesting leave outside the Rules Section 3(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971) gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) the power to grant leave for either a limited or for an indefinite period. A grant of limited leave can be subject to certain conditions

This Practice Note looks at the process of seeking the court’s permission to adduce expert evidence under CPR 35 and provides guidance on what to consider prior to applying, when and how to apply for permission and what the court will consider when determining whether to grant such permission. It sets out practical tips for those seeking permission to adduce expert evidence and for those opposing; for those seeking to challenge an order granting their opponent permission to call an expert and revoking permission for expert evidence. The Practice Note also considers compliance with directions (including the sanctions that apply under CPR 35.13 for defaulting and practical tips to avoid a breach), issues surrounding the other side’s failure to adduce expert evidence and co-operation between parties in relation to expert evidence. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Expert evidence—general considerations. Which provisions should I have in mind when considering expert evidence? Expert witnesses, and those instructing them, are expected to have regard to: • CPR 35 and all relevant CPR

Context Pursuant to section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), planning permission is required for ‘the carrying out of any development of land’. ‘Development’ is defined in TCPA 1990, s 55(1) as: • the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or • the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land Planning permission is therefore required for operational development and material changes of use. See Practice Notes: Operational development and Material change of use. Who can apply for planning permission? Anyone can make a planning application for the development of land; the applicant does not need to own the land to which the application relates. However, the applicant must inform freehold and leasehold owners of the land to which the application relates before submitting the planning application, see: Publicity of planning application required to be carried out by applicant before submission of application below. Outline, full or hybrid planning applications A decision will have

This Practice Note explains the procedure for applications concerning the release of cash detained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). It covers applications by the person from whom the cash was seized, applications by third-party owners, the treatment of interest accrued on seized cash, compensation for wrongful detention of cash and the costs principles applicable in magistrates’ court proceedings. For information on how cash is detained, see Practice Note: Cash seizure and detention. Application by the person from whom the cash was seized When cash has been seized and detained under sections 294 and 295 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), an officer (ie an immigration officer, HMRC officer, officer of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), police officer or an accredited financial investigator) may, after notifying the magistrates’ court, release it, or any part of it if they are satisfied that the conditions for detention under POCA 2002, s 295 no longer apply and therefore detention can no longer be justified. However, where this does not occur, applications

From 1 April 2013, the PRA and the FCA replaced the FSA. From 1 April 2013, in addition to the need to identify which regulator is relevant to the firm's activities and potentially seeking dual authorisation from the PRA and FCA, firms have had to consider the concept of PRA-regulated activities, for which permissions are needed, as well as regulated activities for which FCA permissions are needed. For more information see: Regulated activities—specified activities and investments—overview, Prudential Regulation Authority—supervisory approach—deposit-takers and Prudential Regulation Authority—supervisory approach—insurers One of the changes from 1 April 2013, and outlined in the FCA publications CP12/24, CP12/26 and PS13/05, was the change to the way a firm should apply to vary or cancel its authorisation or Part 4A permissions, or to vary or cancel requirements that are imposed on it by the PRA or FCA. Firms use the Connect system, whether it relates to authorisation and permissions from the PRA or the FCA. Dual-regulated firms apply to the PRA, which refers to the FCA as appropriate. A firm regulated only by

Important note—Archived Practice Note: this Practice Note is no longer updated as it relates to the position prior to the introduction of simplified Immigration Rules and procedures at and before the end of the Brexit transition period. It has been retained in archived form for historic interest. There are a number of Immigration Rules relating to the validity of an application for leave to remain. These are set out in the Immigration Rules, Part 1, para 34. If an application is not validly made it is treated as having never been made. After a gradual roll-out of online procedures across various immigration categories, since November 2018 the vast majority of applications are now made online. Prior to the move to online forms, it was not uncommon for there to be issues as regards the validity requirements, eg problems with payment being taken, or with photographs. Such problems could have very serious consequences, as if an application is returned as invalid after a person’s leave has expired, they are

Law360, Expert analysis: On 1 November 2024, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published finalised guidance on the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increases in control in certain UK-authorised financial services firms. This article provides background to the UK change-in-control regime and summarise the key takeaways from the guidance for both UK-authorised firms and those considering acquiring or increasing control in UK-authorised firms. Written by Mark Chalmers, counsel at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

This Practice Note focuses on how in-house lawyers can apply operational thinking in practice—approaching it as a mindset, a set of behaviours and a way of connecting with the rest of the organisation. It explains how to use operational thinking in the way you work with colleagues and contribute to results. Other aspects of operations are covered in Practice Notes: • Managing operations for in-house lawyers—core concepts • Managing operations for in-house lawyers—process management and value chain • Managing operations for in-house lawyers—measurement and improvement You can assess your understanding of operations using: Understanding operations—checklist, which suggests practical, role-based actions to help improve your knowledge of how your organisation operates and how the legal team can support operational effectiveness. Operations thinking as a mindset Operations thinking isn't a technique you apply occasionally—it's a lens through which you see your work and your organisation. You should be habitually asking questions like: • who is the customer for this work and what do they need? • what happened before this reached me

The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 (FSH(E)R 2013), SI 2013/2996 apply in relation to England only. All enforcement action pertaining to food safety and food hygiene is taken under the regulations. For an introduction to the scope of FSH(E)R 2013, see Practice Note: Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013—an introductory guide. Who do the FSH(E)R 2013 apply to? The FSH(E)R 2013, SI 2013/2996 apply principally to 'food businesses' and 'food business operators'. Regulation 3 creates the presumption that specified food is intended for human consumption. The definitions of a ‘food business’ and a ‘food business operator’ are laid down in Article 3 of Assimilated Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. A 'food business' means any undertaking, whether for profit or not, and whether public or private, carrying out any of the activities related

Arbitration analysis: Alvin Yeo, Chairman of Singapore’s Wong Partnership and partner, Swee Yen Koh, discuss the case of Sanum Investments Limited v The Government of Lao People’s Democratic Republic in which the Singapore Court of Appeal found that the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos) (PRC-Laos BIT) applied to Macau and that an arbitral tribunal had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claimant’s expropriation claims.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision concerned applications for summary judgment and strike out. It provides an example of how the courts apply the ‘no real prospect of success’ test in relation to an application for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24.2(a). Moreover, the case is particularly interesting in its consideration of an application to strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and its discussion of the guidelines set down in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc relating to abuse of process. Written by Christopher Humby, senior associate, at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Private Client analysis: James Egan and Richard Dew, barristers at Ten Old Square Chambers, who acted for the claimant, analyse the decision of Knight v Knight, a case that illustrates the application of the ‘range of factors’ approach to illegality in trusts disputes. The case marks a departure from the previously applied ‘reliance test’, and this new approach arguably allows for courts to make more nuanced decisions.