Immigration analysis: This case gives general guidance on cases where the Secretary of State alleges that a person cheated on their Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). The Upper Tribunal (UT) held that where a person has been identified by Educational Testing Services (ETS) as having cheated on their TOEIC, this will normally be ‘amply sufficient’ to prove that they cheated, absent credible evidence to the contrary. Mere assertions of ignorance or honesty are unlikely to prevent the Secretary of State from proving fraud. Written by Patrick Lewis, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

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.

This Practice Note is a horizon scanner tracking key future developments in the field of immigration. It provides details of key dates for your diary (including forecasted dates where the actual date is unknown) and relevant news items and commentary in relation to new Immigration Rules, legislation, and other key developments, including consultations and calls for evidence. For immigration law developments that have recently happened, see: 2026 Immigration tracker. For immigration law developments in previous years see: 2023–2024 Immigration tracker [Archived] and 2025 Immigration tracker [Archived]. Dates for your diary What’s happening? When? What’s the impact? Find out more Last day that Skilled Worker Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) can be assigned which can benefit from pre-4 April 2024 salary transitional provisions (does not apply to Health and Care ASHE salary jobs) 3 April 2030 If the person has not obtained settlement by then, they will need to be paid higher (median) salary level. But may change further to Earned Settlement implementation Skilled Worker—salary and skill level eligibility tablesSponsoring a Skilled Worker Last day that eligible persons

The following Immigration resources, providing useful practical commentary, legislation, rules and guidance for Immigration lawyers, whether in private practice or in-house, are available in Lexis+® UK. They are referenced and linked to in the Immigration content in Lexis+® UK. Please note, however, the titles listed can only be accessed with the relevant Lexis+® UK subscription(s). Commentary Title Summary Who should use this resource? Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice The leading work on all aspects of the law and practice of immigration, asylum and nationality, offering commentary, supporting legislation and case law Immigration solicitors, barristers, Immigration Advice Authority-regulated advisers and other practitioners who need authoritative guidance on immigration, asylum and nationality law Fransman’s British Nationality Law A leading commentary on British nationality

Immunity under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA 2005), together with the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) provides a statutory framework for giving immunity to individuals in certain situations. SOCPA 2005, ss 71–72 provides for: • agreements not to prosecute a person under an immunity notice (SOCPA 2005, s 71), and • agreements not to use certain evidence against a person under a restricted use undertaking (SOCPA 2005, s 72) There is also a statutory regime for reducing a defendant’s sentence under SA 2020, s 74 when they have offered assistance to the authorities. Additionally, the common law ‘text’ regime can be utilised which enables the police or other authority to submit a confidential letter via the prosecution to the court informing them of any assistance the offender has given them. For further information, see Practice Note: Receiving credit for and review of sentence following assistance given or withheld by the defendant. Where the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the prosecuting authority, a decision to give an immunity

This Practice Note examines the concept of immunity from jurisdiction. It looks at state immunity, diplomatic immunity and judicial proceedings immunity. It considers the general framework of state immunity, the Benkharbouche judgment and the State Immunity Act 1978 (Remedial) Order 2023, SI 2023/112, waiver of state immunity, state immunity in claims by administrative and technical staff, state immunity in claims involving personal and/or psychiatric injury, state immunity in claims by employees of foreign armed forces in the UK, and state immunity in claims against diplomatic missions. In the context of diplomatic immunity it considers the general framework and the employment of migrant domestic workers by foreign diplomats. Finally, this Practice Note considers judicial proceedings immunity (also known as immunity from suit). State immunity: the general framework The purpose of state immunity is to prevent the 'official and governmental acts of one state from being called into question in proceedings before the courts of another'. It means that, in the UK, foreign states enjoy a general immunity from being subjected, against their will, to the jurisdiction of the courts

If an EU law or policy is likely to have a significant economic, social or environmental impact, the Commission conducts an impact assessment before making a legislative proposal. The objective of this assessment is to analyse in more detail the issue to be addressed, whether action should be taken at EU level and the potential effects of the different solutions outlined. The findings of the impact assessment process are summarised in an impact assessment report which must include a description of the environmental, social and economic impacts; who will be affected by the initiative and how, and the consultation strategy and the results obtained from it. When the impact of the new policy is not expected to be significant, the Commission conducts a Roadmap. See also ‘Roadmap’.

A meeting of the directors ahead of an announcement of a transaction, eg IPO, rights issue etc. It will usually be held the evening before impact day. The purpose of the meeting is to approve making the transaction, the prospectus/admission document, pricing and all other matters relevant to the completion of the transaction as necessary.

The day on which a transaction, eg an IPO, rights issue etc is announced via a Regulatory Information Service, usually the day after the completion meeting or impact board meeting.

Where a claimant is or was employed by a public sector employer, his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be relevant in resolving his employment tribunal claims. In a case relating to the dismissal of a school dinner lady for breaching confidence about playground bullying, the EAT has given guidance on the proper approach that tribunals should adopt in analysing the effect of Article 10 rights. It also held that it is a legitimate aim for a state school to protect the reputation and rights of pupils and staff attending and working at the school and, in this regard, Article 10 and the common law allow for a balanced approach, which (a) recognises the legitimate right to make fair comment about a school (in respect of which disciplinary reaction by the school as employer might infringe those rights), but (b) is doubtful of any right to make inaccurate or misleading statements for personal reasons and out of personal hostility (in respect of which such disciplinary reaction might not be such an infringement). EAT: Hill v Great Tey Primary School.

This Practice Note considers the impact of Brexit on asset managers and investment funds and key ‘no-deal’ preparedness steps. For an overview of Brexit-related Practice Notes, see: Brexit and financial services: materials on the post-Brexit UK/EU regulatory regime [Archived]. For more detailed information on the impact of Brexit on funds and fund managers, see Practice Notes: Impact of Brexit: AIFMD—quick guide [Archived] and Impact of Brexit: UCITS—quick guide [Archived]. ‘Onshoring’ of EU funds and asset management regulatory regimes The main EU regulatory regimes which regulate asset management and investment funds (the Relevant Regimes) are: • the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD) • the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive 2009/65/EC • the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) During the ‘Brexit transition period’ (implementation period) the Relevant Regimes (as implemented), and associated marketing and management passports rights, applied in the UK. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018), as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (EU(WA)A 2020)

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Level of uncertainty Following the UK's departure from the EU on 31 January 2020 and the last minute trade deal agreed with the EU, companies and administrators are assessing the impact that Brexit will have on various aspects of share schemes. The good news is that after the introduction of the employee share scheme exemption under the Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, Prospectus Regulation, the main barrier that companies offering share schemes would have faced, has been removed. However, there are a number of other areas of share schemes and their implementation that will or may be affected by Brexit. Notwithstanding the trade deal, there remains uncertainty around financial services, which may impact administrators and other advisors. Certain areas require further action, such as tracking mobile employees and ensuring that social security is paid in the right place. Prospectus requirements One of the main barriers for companies seeking to offer share plans in a particular