Call: 2001
Education: LLB (Hons), Pg. Dip
Languages: Punjabi and Hindi
Practice Areas: Tony heads the Immigration and Public Law groups and is co-developing the Sports-related Law group.
Immigration: Having practised Immigration, Asylum, and Nationality Law for over two decades, Tony is a recognised expert in this specialism and has appeared in cases at all levels, including the European Courts and the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Tony has a demanding Business Immigration practice and is retained by several multinational tech and publicly-trading companies and persons of very high net-worth to provide in-house legal services. The prestigious Chambers and Partners Guide to the Legal Profession has ranked Tony as a notable Immigration practitioner consecutively for the past 13 years.
Public Law: Tony’s reported cases are some of the leading judgments in Administrative Law. He continues to found his practice on a strong sense of social justice, appearing in cases where the rights of the individual are in issue and where justice demands, readily accepts pro-bono instruction, including regular referrals from the Bar Council’s Advocate Scheme. He accepts instructions in a wide range of cases with an overarching emphasis on human rights and has a keen interest in the protection of the rights to private and family life and the freedom of religion and expression, particularly in disputes involving discrimination issues. Tony is also ranked in the Chambers and Partners Guide to the Legal Profession in Administrative & Public Law.
Sports-related Law: In a developing practice area for Chambers, together with Muhammad Ul-Haq, Tony has advised on disputes relating to the Indian Premier League (Twenty20 cricket), footballer marketing/branding (Ballon d’Or winners), and on football league matters. Chambers also receives instructions from the English Football Association.
What Others Say:
– The 2012 edition of Chambers and Partners says Tony is celebrated by clients for his “invaluable” experience in human rights and public and immigration law. They add: “His ability to think outside the box is a commendable trait, which enables him to spot a ground of appeal where others would not”
– The 2013 edition ranks Tony as a “notable practitioner” in immigration, stating that “Tony has a practice centred on civil liberties and human rights as they relate to questions of migration, asylum and religious expression. His recent work on the case of Daley-Murdock in the Court of Appeal is indicative of the level at which he practises”
– The 2014 edition records Tony’s “…strong human rights and asylum focused immigration practice”
– The 2015 edition refers to Tony as “a veteran immigration barrister known for his comprehensive understanding of nationality and EU law”
– The 2016 edition refers to Tony as “a favourite with many solicitors and clients because of his down-to-earth, capable and responsive approach as well as his ability to quickly get to grips with briefs involving complex factual and legal issues”
– The 2017 edition says that Tony is “as well-regarded junior who is noted for his counsel on immigration law, asylum, EU and nationality law” and describes him as a “safe pair of hands”
– 2018: “…really intellectual approach to law… coming up with interesting arguments”
– 2019: “He is really, really fantastic. He is very thorough and always gives the correct guidance”
– 2020: “He has excellent knowledge of immigration and asylum legislation and the associated caselaw, and can advise and act in challenging and often difficult cases.” “An excellent junior to have on your side: he is very hard-working, has considerable negotiating skills and is able to deploy complex arguments in simple language and get to the issues right away.”
– 2021 “Possesses deep expertise in public law matters involving local authorities or central government. He tends to represent claimants, and is particularly experienced in immigration and asylum issues.” “He has considerable negotiating skills and is able to deploy complex arguments in simple language and get to the issues right away.” “A well-regarded junior who is noted for his counsel on immigration law, asylum, EU and nationality law. He is regularly involved in significant cases before the Supreme Court. He often handles cases concerning minimum income or English language requirements.” “He is creative when it comes to points of law and he has a good relationship with his clients.”
– 2022: “His skeleton arguments are comprehensive and well researched, and he presents very well.” “He’s well prepared, has an eye for detail and is an extremely industrious barrister. He’s also a tenacious advocate.” Recent work: Acted for a claimant before the Court of Appeal in a case concerning the lawfulness of the transfer of data to the British High Commission in Kingston in Jamaica for the purposes of an out-of-country deportation appeal under GDPR.
– 2023: Ranked in Immigration and Administrative & Public Law
– 2024: Ranked in Immigration and Administrative & Public Law
Awards:
– 2018: Winner: Immigration and Asylum Law Barrister of the Year 2018
– 2023: Finalist: Civil Lawyer of the Year 2023
Tony is pleased to accept instructions on a direct access basis.
Recent Cases of Interest:
R (SAA (Sudan)) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (2023) Supreme Court
Tony represented a person subject to removal to Rwanda in the successful challenge to the government’s flagship Rwanda Removals Policy. The judicial review challenged the legality of the new and innovative scheme on grounds of safety in Rwanda, including as it relates to data protection rights. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s majority judgment that based on the evidence Rwanda could not be considered safe for the removal of asylum seekers. The case received widespread international media coverage and the roll of counsel described as a “who’s who list of immigration practitioners”.
Christine Lee -v- The Security Services (2023) Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Tony was instructed on behalf of Ms Lee, a former solicitor who was named in an Interference Alert Notice given to Parliament as an alleged Chinese spy said to be involved in ‘political interference activities in the UK.’ Ms Lee challengedon public law grounds the lawfulness of the Notice and raised novel arguments before the IPT in respect of the lack of disclosure from MI5 during the legal proceedings. Tony acted as leading-junior in the test disclosure application.
Reported Cases:
European Court of Human Rights
S.A.S. v The Republic of France (2015) 60 EHRR 11, 36 BHRC 617, [2014] ECHR 695, [2014] Eq LR 590 – on 27 November 2013 Tony appeared before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights and made oral submissions to the effect that the Republic’s controversial burqa ban offends core Convention rights and is in breach of international law. The case attracted worldwide attention and a number of leading NGOs intervened, including Amnesty International, Liberty and Article 19. See the Court’s press summary and the Guardian’s article on the case. The judgment is summarised in Tony’s analysis of the judgment.
European Court of Justice
SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section Case C-129/18 [2019] 1 WLR 5055, [2019] 3 CMLR 16 [2019] INLR 507 – heard by the Luxembourg Court in December 2018, the issue in this case was whether the term “family member” as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizenship Directive) included a non-EEA national adopted child in circumstances where the adoption is not one which is recognised under domestic law. The European Court agreed with the UK Supreme Court that such a child is an extended family member. The success of this case resulted in amendments to the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016.
Zu & Chen v United Kingdom [2004] EU; ECJ C-200/02 (19 October 2004); [2005] QB 325; [2005] All ER (EC) 129; [2004] 3 WLR 1453; [2004] 3 CMLR 1060 – Landmark judgment: Right to reside in UK of primary carer of an EC/Irish citizen in context of right to reside under Article 18 EC. The resulting decision led to a change of the domestic immigration rules and a change in the nationality law of EIRE. Widely reported and cited in textbooks.
Supreme Court
Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (AAA (Syria) & Ors) [2023] 1 WLR 4433, [2023] UKSC 42 – “the Rwanda case” in which the Supreme Court dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal and agreed with the Court of Appeal (majority) that Rwanda is an unsafe country for the removal of asylum-seekers.
SSHD v HA (Iraq) [2022] 1 WLR 3784, [2023] 1 All ER 365, [2022] INLR 425, [2022] UKSC 22 – the Supreme Court dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal in a case where Tony represented a man who was subject to deportation proceedings. The man was in a subsisting relationship with a British citizen and had three British children. The Court considered the statutory scheme relating to deportations and gave guidance on the meaning of the “unduly harsh” test.
SM (Algeria) v ECO [2018] 1 WLR 1035, [2018] 3 All ER 177, [2018] INLR 368, [2018] UKSC 9 – whether the term “family member” as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizenship Directive) includes a non-EEA national adopted child in circumstances where the adoption is not one which is recognised under domestic law. The Supreme Court referred three questions to the CJEU. Ultimately, the appeal succeeded and led to a change in the law.
Gina Miller and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (“the BREXIT case”) [2018] AC 61, [2017] 2 WLR 583, [2017] 1 All ER 593, [2017] 2 CMLR 15, [2017] HRLR 2, [2017] UKSC 5 – In what was widely described as the greatest constitutional case for over 300 years and with a “breath-taking array of legal glitterati deployed”, Tony successfully represented the interests of children and EU nationals on the question of whether the Government could give notice under Article 50 to leave the European Union using the Royal Prerogative.
MM (Lebanon) v SSHD [2017] 1 WLR 771, [2017] HRLR 6, [2017] Imm. AR 729, [2017] INLR 575, [2017] UKSC 10 – Tony acted in this challenge to the Minimum Income Requirement for a UK citizen or resident wishing to sponsor a non-EEA national spouse or partner into the UK is in breach of Art 8 ECHR, unlawfully discriminates and or is irrational. The appeal succeeded on the basis that the rules unlawfully failed to take into account the best interests of affected children and the guidance wrongly excluded other forms of financial support that a couple could take into account for article 8 purposes to show the MIR. See here for a summary of the case and here for Tony’s article published in LexisNexis summarising the judgment.
SS (Congo) v ECO, Nairobi [2017] UKSC 10 – Tony acted successfully in this appeal which considered the extent to which the entry clearance criteria in the Immigration Rules for a non-EEA national spouse or partner and dependent children reflect the requirements of Art 8 ECHR in individual cases including those involving sponsors who are British citizens or refugees located in the UK; and whether applicants for such entry clearance who do not satisfy the rules are required to establish “exceptional” or “compelling” circumstances in order to obtain entry clearance under Art 8 ECHR.
R (Kiarie & Byndloss) v SSHD [2017] 1 WLR 2380, [2017] HRLR 7, [2017] 4 All ER 811, [2017] Imm AR 1299, [2017] UKSC 42 – in a test challenge, the SSHD’s newly introduced use of the power commonly known as ‘deport first, appeal later’ in section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as inserted by the Immigration Act 2014 was declared to be unlawful on the basis that it deprived appellants of an effective right of appeal.
R (Ali & Bibi) v SSHD [2015] 1 WLR 5055, [2016] HRLR 4, [2015] UKSC 68 – In what is widely known as ‘the English language case’ Tony acted for Mrs Bibi who challenged the concerned a challenge to the introduction in 2010 of an Immigration Rule. The Rule imposed a requirement that spouses or partners from certain non-EEA countries who wish to marry British citizens or persons settled in the UK should first learn a certain level of English, and pass a test, before they join their spouses or partners in the United Kingdom. The judgment contains several important judicial statements, such as statements about the substantial interference that will be caused to family life in many cases, the limited value of a pre-entry language requirement in promoting integration, and the inadequacies of the Guidance. These statements should mean that more applications for entry clearance and appeals against refusals should now succeed on Article 8 grounds where the pre-entry English requirement has not been satisfied. The Secretary of State will also have to issue new and modified Guidance which properly reflects the court’s concerns.
Court of Appeal
R (AAA (Syria) and Ors) v SSHD [2023] 1 WLR 3103, [2023] HRLR 13, [2023] 4 All ER 253, [2023] Imm AR 1249, [2023] EWCA Civ 745 & [2023] EWCA Civ 266 – “the Rwanda case”. The Court of Appeal, comprising the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-President, held by a majority that Rwanda is not a safe country to remove asylum seekers to.
Chowdhury v SSHD [2021] 1 WLR 5544, [2022] 1 CMLR 23, [2021] Imm AR 1748, [2021] EWCA Civ 1220 –
TD (Albania) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 619 – Tony acted for a man subject to deportation proceedings.
Johnson v SSHD [2020] INLR 548, [2021] Imm AR 31, [2020] EWCA Civ 1032 – Deportation. In a test case heard by a Presidential panel of the First-tier Tribunal, and on appeal by the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, the Secretary of State wished to test the efficacy of appeals where the deportee had already been deported, pursuant to statutory power (this being a follow up to Tony’s success in the Kiarie & Byndloss case). Tony’s client argued that the giving of evidence from overseas by video link to the tribunal in the UK was contrary to data protection safeguards set out in the GDPR.
Kaur v SSHD [2019] 4 WLR 94, [2020] Imm AR 36, [2019] EWCA Civ 1101 – did the SSHD have power to retain the original passport of an applicant in circumstances where the applicant continued to have valid leave to remain notwithstanding the subsequent refusal?
SSHD v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 1776 – application of the Immigration Rules and Article 8 in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in MM (Lebanon).
WT (Hungary) v SSHD – settled – the untested question for the court to determine is whether a failure to complete the 12 month qualifying period under the UK Workers’ Registration Scheme disentitles the EEA national to an acquisition of the right of permanent residence in the UK following completion of 5 years as a qualified person. Settled with the SSHD granting WT permanent residence.
R (Byndloss) v SSHD [2016] 1 WLR 1961, [2015] EWCA Civ 1020 – appeal from the Administrative Court concerning the interpretation and application of section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as inserted by the Immigration Act 2014. Where a person liable to deportation has had a human rights claim refused by the Secretary of State but has a right of appeal against that decision, section 94B empowers the Secretary of State to certify the claim if she considers that removal of the person pending the outcome of such an appeal would not be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The effect of certification is that any appeal must be brought from outside the UK. The appeal succeeded in part on a challenge to the guidance and the operation of the statutory provision but Court held it otherwise to be lawful.
SSHD v SS (Congo and others) [2016] 1 All ER 706, [2015] Imm AR 1036, [2015] INLR 683, [2015] EWCA Civ 387, [2015] WLR(D) 199 –Tony was instructed in 3 of the 6 test cases defending the SSHD’s appeals against the decisions of the Upper Tribunal (IAC) allowing individual appeals pursuant to Art 8 where the income threshold of £18,600 pa was not met.
R (Ali & Bibi) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 322, [2013] WLR(D) 139 – appeal from the Administrative Court on the pre-entry English test. By a majority decision (Sir David Keene dissenting) the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held the requirement to be proportionate.
Khan v Coventry Magistrates Court & Coventry City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 751; [2011] 175 JP 429 – Mr Khan challenged the magistrates’ court finding that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence for purposes of selling alcohol challenging, in particular, the court’s ability to take into account evidence which post-dated the complaint.
R (Daley-Murdock) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 161; [2011] WLR (D) 56; The Times, 2 March 2011 – Test case on the question of whether the SSHD was required to make a tandem removal decision, or within a short timeframe thereafter, when making a decision rejecting an application from an overstayer or illegal entrant for leave to remain.
R (Ghai) v Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (Ramgharia Gurdwara, Hitchin and others intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 59; [2010] 3 WLR 737; [2010] WLR (D) 36; [2010] 7 EG 101; [2010] PTSR 1003; [2011] 1 QB 591; [2010] 3 All ER 380; Times, February 18, 2010 (10 February 2010) –The Appellant appealed against the dismissal of his claim for judicial review of the decision of the respondent local authority that it would not provide land dedicated for traditional open-air funeral pyres. The Master of the Rolls ruled that ‘open air’ funeral pyres were lawful under British law giving the term “building” a wide definition, fulfilling Baba Ghai’s pleas to be ‘naturally cremated in a sacrament of fire’. The landmark verdict was the extraordinary outcome of Baba Ghai’s historic four year long legal campaign which attracted worldwide attention and support. See here for a full history of the case. The case has also been cited widely in the context of planning law.
SSHD v AHK & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 287; [2009] 1 WLR 2049 – Test case – The court set out the principles to be adopted in determining whether a special advocate should be appointed to represent an applicant seeking judicial review of a refusal of his application for British citizenship, where the refusal was on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated good character for reasons that the Home Secretary was not willing to disclose on National Security Grounds (the Claimant is a Muslim preacher and is alleged to have been an Usama-Bin-Laden sympathiser and have given sermons in the mosque in support of UBL).
MB (Pakistan) v ECO (Islamabad) [2008] EWCA Civ 1082; [2008] WLR (D) 329; Law Gazette 30.10.08; [2009] Imm AR 254 – Test case – Use of third party support to discharge the maintenance requirement in entry clearance applications. MB succeeded on article 8 grounds. The linked appeals went on to successfully appeal to the Supreme Court resulting in the landmark judgment in Ahmed Mahad & others (Appellants) v SSHD [2009] UKSC 16.
Birmingham City Council v Shafi and Ellis [2008] EWCA Civ 186; [2008] WLR (D) 341; [2009] 1 WLR 1961; [2009] 3 All ER 127; [2009] HLR 25; [2009] BLGR 367; [2009] CP Rep 1, [2009] PTSR 503 – Test case – Successfully defended an injunction obtained by the Birmingham City Council against alleged gang members. The Court of Appeal held that where a local authority sought an injunction in circumstances in which an antisocial behaviour order would be available, the court should not, save perhaps in an exceptional case, grant an injunction but should leave the local authority to seek an antisocial behaviour order so that the detailed checks and balances developed by Parliament and in the decided cases would apply.
MN (India) v Entry Clearance Officer (New Delhi) [2008] EWCA Civ 38; [2008] All ER (D) 45 (Feb) – The Appellant’s natural parents were unable to care for her. A British citizen adopted her in India in accordance with Indian law. This adoption was not, however, recognised by English law and the appellant did not meet any of the requirements of the Immigration Rules covering adoptions. There had, however, been a genuine transfer of parental responsibility to the proposed adoptive parents. The Court of Appeal emphasised the need for a careful assessment of the suitability of prospective adoptive parents in the UK and to ensure the impact on the family life of minors is adequately assessed.
High Court
R (AAA (Syria) and Ors) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 55 & [2023] EWHC 3230 & [2022] EWHC 2191 & [2022] EWHC 1922 – “the Rwanda case” before the Divisional Court.
Birmingham City Council v Afsar, Allman and Ors [2020] ELR 341, [2020] EWHC 864 (QB), [2020] 4 WLR 168, [2020] ELR 81, [2020] 3 All ER 756, [2019] EWHC 327 (QB) – Test case – representing protesting parents against injunction proceedings brought by the Local Authority, in this widely publicised case. The protesting parents claimed parental rights in the content matter of equality teaching at the Anderton Park Primary School, and specifically with regards to LGBT theme. The case touched on fundamental issues of free speech, including on the internet and social media, religious freedom and religious speech and discrimination.
HA v University of Wolverhampton [2018] ELR 272, [2018] ACD 35, [2018] EWHC 144 (Admin) – Pharmacy student was excluded from the court after the start of his first year because of a conviction that he had obtained as a 14-year old schoolboy. Knowles J held that the University’s exclusion was unlawful because it failed to properly balance the conviction against other factors including the fact that the student had turned his life around since and had done well in his exams.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] CMLR 34, [2016] HRLR 23, [2017] 1 All ER 158, [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) – “the Brexit case” before the Divisional Court.
R (Ghulam) v SSHD [2016] ACD 133, [2016] EWHC 2639 (Admin) – This case followed on from R (Refugee Action) v SSHD where the High Court found that the decision of the Home Secretary to freeze the rate of benefit (asylum support) paid to asylum seekers of £36 per week, without any increase for inflation for the second year running, was irrational. The SSHD was ordered to review and reconsider the asylum support rates in the light of Popplewell J’s judgment. Having purportedly done so she maintained that the rate should still be £36 per week. The Claimants contended that in reaching her new but identical figure the SSHD again acted irrationally, discriminatory and failed to take into account best interests of affected children.
R (Aryubi) v Birmingham City Council [2015] EWHC 1972 (Admin) – A successful judicial review challenge to the decision of the local authority terminating the Claimants’ licences to trade as market stall holders.
R (Kashyap) v G4S [2014] EWHC (Admin) – (test case) Tony successfully acted for Mr Kashyap (a British Hindu) in his judicial review against the prison’s decision not to permit him to attend his father’s cremation without handcuffs contrary to their Article 9 ECHR rights. See here for a summary of the case.
R (Kadyamarunga) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 301 (Admin) – Tony successfully acted for Mrs Kadyamarunga who challenged the SSHDs decision to grant her three years DLR and not ILR under the terms of the legacy.
R (Vazir Singh) v Post Office Limited (test case), a judicial review challenge to a sub-postmaster termination decision by the Post Office. The Court was asked to decide whether POL is a public authority for purposes of s.3 Human Rights Act 1998. * Settled by consent
R (MM & AF) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 280 – Tony successfully acted for both MM and AF in this test case challenging the £18,600 minimum income requirement in spouse entry clearance cases which was introduced on 9 July 2012.
R (Hassan) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 582 (Admin) – Judicial review challenge as to the application of the transitional provisions of Policy DP5/96 relating to immigrant families with children with more than 7 years residency in the UK and the correct scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
R (Bent) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 4036 (Admin) – Tony successfully acted for Mr Bent in his claim for damages arising from his unlawful detention.
R (Ali & Anor) v Minister for the Cabinet Office & The Statistics Board [2012] EWHC 1943 (Admin) – The Claimant challengeds 39(4)(f) of the Statistics, Registration and Services Act 2007 as being incompatible with Article 8 ECHR on the basis that section 39(4)(f) allowed disclosure of census data where a request to the board was made in connection with criminal proceedings. For a write up on the case, see here.
R (AHK & Ors) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 1117 (Admin) – The Administrative Court gave directions as to the availability of a closed material procedure in judicial review proceedings brought by claimants seeking to challenge the decisions of the defendant Secretary of State in refusing to grant them naturalisation as British citizens where she contended that to give more reasons for her decisions would be harmful to national security.
R (Chapti and Others) v SSHD (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 3370 (Admin); [2011] All ER (D) 135 (Dec) – Test case (widely reported) – the Claimant challenged the pre-entry English test for foreign spouses as being incompatible with articles 8, 12 and 14 of the ECHR and contrary to EU law. She further contended that the rule change was discriminatory on multiple levels including on grounds of gender, race and nationality. Beatson J (as he then was) held that the rule change does not interfere with the article 12 rights of the Claimants, it did impact on article 8 family rights but pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate and justified. He went on to hold that there was no direct or indirect discrimination.
R (Walker) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2473 (Admin) – Test case. The Claimant challenged by way of Judicial Review the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s rejection of her leave to remain application on the basis that whilst made in time was missing a photograph.
R (M) & FM v SSHD [2011] EWHC 338 (Admin);[2011] All ER (D) 53 (Mar) – Complex case concerning the SSHD’s continued detention pending deportation of a Bosnian man in circumstances where an emergency travel document was not forthcoming and the effect of that detention on his minor British Child. The case foreshadowed the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in ZH(Tanzania) on s55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 which followed weeks later. Tony acted s sole-counsel for the child who appeared as an interested party and successfully argued that the decision to detain was unlawful because it had failed to consider the child’s best interests.
R (Grant) v SSHD [2011] EWHC – The Claimant argued in her Judicial Review that rule 395C of the immigration rules discriminates against divorced dependent parents who are excluded as a category within the rule.
R (Ghai) v Newcastle City Council (Ramgharia Gurdwara, Hitchin and others intervening) [2009] EWHC 978 (Admin); [2009] WLR (D) 151; TLR 18.05.09; [2009] NPC 68; [2009] All ER (D) 68 – Landmark case – In the first case of its kind the Claimant (a Hindu Baba) sought a declaration as to the lawfulness of his wish to be cremated on an open air funeral pyre in line with his strict religious belief. Worldwide media coverage and widely reported.
Rahim and Bakr v Security Industry Authority [2007] EWHC 2338 (Admin); [2008] 2 All ER 1003, [2009] 1 WLR 466, [2009] ICR 233 – Test case – challenging by way of case stated the automatic refusal of security licences to those with minor convictions – whether proportionate.
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Bungay and another v Saini and another (Race discrimination: Vicarious liability) [2011] UKEAT/0331/10/CEA; [2011] Eq LR 1130 – vicarious liability of an agent for acts of discrimination. Discriminators jointly and severally liable. Issues of caste discrimination raised for the first time before the EAT.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Chowdhury (Extended Family Members; dependency) [2020] UKUT 188 (IAC) – at a remitted hearing from the Court of Appeal, the UT was asked to determine for the first time whether the words “and continues to be dependent” in regulation 8(2)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 meant that there should be no break in the continuity of the claimant’s dependency on the EEA national sponsor.
CJ (International Video-link Hearing: Data Protection: Jamaica) [2019] Imm. AR. 852, [2019] UKUT 126 (IAC) – test case – do enforced overseas video link hearings comply with the GDPR?
Dasgupta (error of law – proportionality – correct approach) [2016] UKUT 28 (IAC) – Test cast. The Appellant is a national of India, aged 85 years. The ECO refused to grant entry clearance as an adult dependant relative. The Appellant’s appeal to the tribunal was allowed on Article 8 grounds but dismissed under the rules (his argument being that the rules are unlawful and incompatible with Art 8 ECHR). The ECO appealed the decision under Art 8 to the Upper Tribunal. The Appellant cross appealed the decision under the rules. The President of the Upper Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the ECO’s appeal upholding the decision of the First-tier. Judgment is here. In respect of the Appellant’s cross appeal to the legality of the rules the Upper Tribunal adjourned for the issue to be determined at a later stage.
Ali (s.76 – “liable to deportation”) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 250 (IAC); [2011] Imm AR 624 – definition of the phrase “liable to deportation” in s 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971.
MN (India) v ECO (New Delhi) [2007] UKAIT 00015; [2007] IAS, Vol. 10, No. 5 – Indian national; adopted overseas; whether adoption valid for purposes of immigration.
Other Notable Cases:
High Court, Chancery Division
Kataria + 13 others v Lal and Bandi – complex case where the Claimants, all victims of a fraudulent investment scheme (Ponzi scheme) sued the Ltd company which sold them the scheme and its two directors. Case involved complex applications including for Tracing/Provision of Information orders, Non-Party Disclosure order, Tracing order and Committal for Contempt. Tony acted as sole-counsel for all 14 Claimants.
Crown Court
R v P (Ipswich Crown Court) – 10 week trial. Counts included large conspiracy to facilitate breaches of immigration law, mortgage fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to infringe trademark. Led-junior for the Lead Defendant.
R v C (Wolverhampton Crown Court) [2014] – 10 handed conspiracy to facilitate breach of immigration law. Tony acted as sole-counsel.
County Court
Malkit Singh and others v A Gurdwara – County Court – Test case. In what is believed to be the first case of its kind internationally Tony acted for five claimants who brought disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 against a Gurdwara which applied a PCP refusing admission to those who are unable to sit on the floor, whether because of disability or old age, into the darbar (prayer) and langar (food) halls unless segregated behind partitions. The case settled in the week preceding trial with the Claimants accepting a penny in damages (notwithstanding a £50,000 claim) on the basis that the Defendant agree to remove the partitioning screens, provide lift access between floors and remove all signs and prohibitions preventing the Claimants from sitting on chairs in the prayer hall.
Isgrove v Vehicle Control Services Ltd – County Court – Test case – does the PCP operated by the Part 20 Defendant company, including the machine in operation, discriminate against the Part 20 Claimant on grounds of her dyslexia. *Settled by consent
