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
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...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

IMMIGRATION: R (Mwangi) [2008] EWHC 3130

Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Slug : r-mwangi-2008-ewhc-3130
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 23, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87459

(Queen's Bench Division; Administrative Court, Munby J; 18 December 2008)

The judge rejected the application for judicial review of a decision to refuse indefinite leave to remain to a person living with someone with indefinite leave to remain. The judge noted that the mere fact that a claim for judicial review was based on an explicitly 'family' immigration policy was no sufficient reason for putting the case before a nominated judge assigned to Family Division, any more than a listing before such a judge was to be justified simply because an application for judicial review was based on a claim to Art 8 protection for 'family life'. Some such cases might appropriately be directed to be heard by such a judge, but not all such cases would justify such a direction.

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