header-logo header-logo

15 November 2017
Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

​Jurisdiction block demolished by Khan

Relatives of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals concerned about their immigration status post-Brexit have received some reassurance from a landmark Court of Appeal judgment.

The judgment reverses an earlier Upper Tribunal decision that abolished the rights of ‘extended family members’ to access the immigration tribunal in order to explain their case to a judge independent from the Home Office (Sala [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC)). The decision therefore could affect thousands of relatives of EEA nationals refused residence or entry to the UK.

The case, Muhammad Yasir Khan v Home Secretary [2017] EWCA Civ 1755, concerned a Pakistani national who applied to remain in the UK as a dependent on his German national uncle. The Home Office argued Khan was neither sufficiently dependent nor that his EEA national sponsor was ‘exercising treaty rights’. The Upper Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, due to the effect of Sala, which has left judicial review as the sole means of challenge for applicants.

However, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Khan overturns Sala.

Rajiv Sharma, immigration barrister at 36 Civil, who represented Khan, said: ‘Without a full, unconditional guarantee of their rights post-Brexit, the relatives of EEA nationals are in an increasingly precarious position as exit day approaches.

‘The decision of the Court of Appeal will be welcome news for many vulnerable families who have been denied the right to explain their case to a judge and wrongly treated as illegal immigrants.’

Sharma said he hoped the tribunals would now issue guidance on how the cancelled appeals will now be handled.

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll