header-logo header-logo

Left in limbo

17 May 2013
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A Home Office policy that leaves children in limbo by making successive grants of short periods of leave fails to consider the welfare and best interests of the child, the High Court has held.

In SM and TM and JD and Others v SSHD [2013] EWHC 1144 (Admin), Mr Justice Holman ruled the policy unlawful.

The case concerned foreign national children who were granted discretionary leave to remain for three years under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when the Home Office policy DP5/96 was withdrawn.

Such children were usually granted indefinite leave to remain under the old regime. Sophie Freeman, instructing solicitor at Coram Children’s Legal Centre, said the judgment recognised that repeated grants of temporary status could be “damaging to the welfare of children and contrary to their best interests”.

Issue: 7560 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll