Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
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