header-logo header-logo

19 July 2023
Issue: 8034 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Public
printer mail-detail

Immigration fees hike criticised

Immigration visa fees and the immigration heath surcharge are to rise significantly to help fund an increase in public sector pay, the government has confirmed.

The surcharge will increase from £624 to £1,035 per person, and the discounted rate for students and children will increase to £776.

The cost of work visas and visit visas will increase by 15%, and the cost of study visas, certificates of sponsorship, settlement, citizenship, wider entry clearance, leave to remain and priority visas will rise by at least 20%.

However, the increase has been criticised by immigration lawyers and support groups.

Immigration barrister Colin Yeo, of Garden Court Chambers, questioned whether increasing immigration fees to fund a public sector pay rise was legal, since s 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 ‘sets out an exhaustive list of considerations to which the home secretary may have regard’, which does not include the purpose stated by the government.

Yeo, in his freemovement.org.uk website, calculated that ‘the cost of a settlement application will therefore rise to at least £2,885 per person.

‘For a family of four, that will be over £11,500 in total. That family will also have paid something like £15,000 in immigration health surcharge costs, and that assumes no further price rises in the next five years. And their visa fees will typically have amounted to around £6,200.

‘They will have needed to pay for additional services from the Home Office and there’s the cost of a lawyer as well. The cost is at least £33,000 before paying for your lawyer. That’s a lot of money to be forking out compared to your co-workers and fellow residents.’

The government will also equalise costs for students and those using a priority service, so people pay the same whether they apply from within the UK or from outside the UK.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll