*/
Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national arrived in the United Kingdom as a spouse of a person settled and present in the UK. The defendant Home Secretary made two consecutive decisions permitting him to remain on a limited basis. The claimant overstayed his permission by two years and eight months. He made a further application for leave to remain, which the Secretary of State refused. The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that it was settled law that considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were embedded in the Immigration Rules such that if the Secretary of State applied those Rules then, ordinarily, art 8 considerations would have been fully catered for. In the instant case, no good arguable grounds had been advanced that there had been factors particular to the claimant that had not been capable of being assessed from within the existing framework of Rules and which therefore needed to be assessed outside of the Rules. Further, the Secretary of State had taken into account all of the factors and matters which had been relevant to the claimant. Finally, there had been no error of law in the approach adopted by the Secretary of State to the question of whether there had been insurmountable obstacles to relocation.
Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national arrived in the United Kingdom as a spouse of a person settled and present in the UK. The defendant Home Secretary made two consecutive decisions permitting him to remain on a limited basis. The claimant overstayed his permission by two years and eight months. He made a further application for leave to remain, which the Secretary of State refused. The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that it was settled law that considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were embedded in the Immigration Rules such that if the Secretary of State applied those Rules then, ordinarily, art 8 considerations would have been fully catered for. In the instant case, no good arguable grounds had been advanced that there had been factors particular to the claimant that had not been capable of being assessed from within the existing framework of Rules and which therefore needed to be assessed outside of the Rules. Further, the Secretary of State had taken into account all of the factors and matters which had been relevant to the claimant. Finally, there had been no error of law in the approach adopted by the Secretary of State to the question of whether there had been insurmountable obstacles to relocation.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
