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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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