Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

IMMIGRATION/HUMAN RIGHTS: R (Forrester) v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2008] EWHC 2307 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : r-forrester-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-office-2008-ewhc-2307-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 17, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87279

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; Sullivan J; 5 September 2008)

The claimant had entered the UK lawfully, and had obtained valid leave to remain for herself and her daughter. She later obtained the Secretary of State's permission to marry a man who had been settled in the UK for over 38 years. She then sought permission to remain in the UK as a spouse, but was refused because the cheque sent with the application was bounced by the bank, and by the time the cheque was re-presented and honoured, the claimant's leave to remain had expired. The Secretary of State argued that she and the daughter should be returned to Jamaica, and that the husband could move to Jamaica with them, where they could if they wished re-apply.

No consideration had been given to the impact of removing the claimant and her daughter on their family life and the family life of the claimant's husband. This claimant had not in any way attempted to jump the queue unlawfully. The proposal that the husband return to Jamaica clearly involved interference with their family life, albeit limited, and there was no conceivable justification for it. It was one thing to have a firm and fair immigration policy, another to have an inflexible and rigid system that paid no regard to individual circumstances.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from