Paying The Price For Unreasonable Conduct

In litigation the Civil Procedure Rules (the Court rules which govern civil cases) stipulate that if a Claimant discontinues his claim once proceedings have begun then he is liable to pay not only his own costs but also his opponent’s costs incurred up to the point of discontinuance.  However, the High Court case of Harrap v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust demonstrates how the Court can dis-apply this rule in certain circumstances.

In that case, the Claimant pursued a clinical negligence claim against the Defendant for its alleged failure to arrange a cardiology review.  The Claimant claimed that had the review taken place then he would have undergone treatment which would have avoided the stroke from which he later suffered.  The claim proceeded to trial.  However, on the third day of the trial, the Claimant discontinued his claim following evidence from one of the Defendant’s factual witnesses during cross-examination.  That evidence, which was fatal to the Claimant’s case, was not contained in the witness statement of that particular witness previously.

The Claimant accepted that he would have to pay the Defendant’s costs of the action as a result of the discontinuance of the claim but he contended that he should only be responsible for the costs up to the date of exchange of witness statements and thereafter the Defendant should pay his costs on the basis that had the Defendant disclosed that crucial piece of evidence at the appropriate stage then the Claimant would have discontinued his claim much earlier.

The Defendant however argued that the claim was always doomed to fail and that the Claimant should not be able to avoid the usual cost consequences of the discontinuance of the claim.  The Defendant contended that the additional evidence provided by its witness did not amount to a change of circumstances which would justify the Court from departing from the general rule that the discontinuing Claimant should pay the Defendant’s costs of the action in its entirety.

However, the Judge did not accept the Defendant’s argument that the claim was always going to fail.  Instead the Judge found that the new evidence amounted to a change of circumstances which was due to the unreasonable conduct of the Defendant.  The Defendant had unreasonably failed to set out the full details of its case in the witness statement.  Therefore the Judge departed from the general rule on costs and the Claimant was ordered to pay his own costs and the Defendant’s costs up to the date when the new evidence was disclosed and thereafter the Claimant was not liable to pay the Defendant’s costs.

This case is a salient reminder for those engaged in litigation that conduct is all important and that any conduct which is perceived as being unreasonable by the Court will be penalised.

Picture of Luke Patel

Luke Patel

Luke Patel
Partner
Commercial Dispute Resolution Team
LPatel@LawBlacks.com
0113 227 9316
@LukeLawBlacks

Posted in Commercial Dispute Resolution | Leave a comment

Fact-finding hearings and Practice Direction 12J

In circumstances where a child’s parents have separated and they are unable to reach an agreement about the arrangements for the child, either party may decide to apply to the Court for a Child Arrangements Order.  A Child Arrangements Order regulates who a child will live with and whether that child will spend time or otherwise have ‘contact’ (i.e. phone calls) with the other parent (and sometimes with other relevant people).  There may also be occasions when the Court is asked to make protective or prohibitive orders on an urgent basis.

In proceedings relating to a Child Arrangements Order, the Court presumes that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to the contrary.  So what should the Court do when one or both parties allege domestic abuse has taken place?

Firstly, it should be understood that in this context domestic abuse is defined as:

“any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional abuse. Domestic abuse also includes culturally specific forms of abuse including, but not limited to, forced marriage, honour-based violence, dowry-related abuse and transnational marriage abandonment”.

In proceedings when allegations of this nature arise, what is known as ‘Practice Direction 12J’ provides guidance about what the Court is required to do. This includes the Court having to consider at all stages of the proceedings the nature of any allegation, admission or evidence of domestic abuse, and the extent to which it would be likely to be relevant in deciding whether to make a Child Arrangements Order and if so, in what terms.

In circumstances where the allegations are denied, the Court will have to make a decision about whether it is necessary to conduct a specific hearing to determine whether, on ‘the balance of probabilities’, the alleged incidents did or did not happen.  This is called a fact-finding hearing (or Finding of Fact Hearing /FOFH).

Often allegations are raised at the start of proceedings and you may therefore find the Court is making directions relating to potential fact-finding hearings very early on. This may include directions about a schedule of allegations with a statement in support, the requirement for the other party’s response, together with any third party witness statements, as well as the potential need for Police disclosure and disclosure of medical evidence, which can all be very daunting for the parties.  As this is a complex area of law it is important you get the right legal advice.

Charlotte Gannon

Charlotte Gannon
Solicitor
Family Law Team
CGannon@LawBlacks.com
0113 322 2852
@CGLawBlacks

Posted in Family Law | Leave a comment

Entire Agreement Clauses

Most commercial contracts will include a clause known as an “entire agreement clause”.  This type of clause is used to signify the intent of the parties that the written terms of the contract should represent the agreement between the parties in its entirety and that it will supersede all preceding agreements, negotiations or discussions that have not been set out in the agreement.  The primary purpose of such a clause is to prevent the parties to a written agreement claiming that statements made during contract negotiations, which are not included in the final agreement, constitute either additional terms of the agreement or a form of side or collateral agreement.

Entire Agreement Clauses provide commercial certainty for the parties to an agreement as the full extent of the agreement between them is contained in one single document.  Entire Agreement Clauses also prevent potential litigation between the parties, which would not only be costly but also very time consuming, as they force the parties to acknowledge that they are not relying on any statements or representations made during the contractual negotiations other than those expressly set out in the document and therefore they are effectively waiving their rights to rely subsequently upon anything said before the formation of the contract.

Entire Agreement Causes must be reasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.  If the parties are both commercial entities and the contract is made in a commercial context, it is unlikely that an Entire Agreement Clause excluding liability for pre-contract representations would be considered unreasonable.  However, an Entire Agreement Clause cannot be used to exclude liability for fraudulent pre-contractual representations.

A typical Entire Agreement Clause will state that:

  • The contract is the whole agreement between the parties.
  • The contract supersedes any previous agreements or understandings.
  • The parties do not rely on any representation made prior to the making of the contract.

Although the Courts will uphold Entire Agreement Clauses which are expressed in general terms, the parties should be aware of the limits to these clauses and consider whether to provide for express exclusions.  If the parties wish to exclude certain liabilities or to ensure that a specific term is not implied into a contract then this should be expressly stated and they should not assume that the Entire Agreement Clause will cover the position.

Picture of Luke Patel

Luke Patel

Luke Patel
Partner
Commercial Dispute Resolution Team
LPatel@LawBlacks.com
0113 227 9316
@LukeLawBlacks

Posted in Commercial Dispute Resolution | Leave a comment

Immigration and no-deal Brexit: free-movement at the cliff face

Amidst the Parliamentary furore, on Monday the Government quietly released the key immigration policy for a no-deal scenario, highlighting the chasm which now exists between the deal and no-deal outcomes.  This restrictive policy adds to the long line of initiatives overseen by a Prime Minister preoccupied with ‘getting tough on immigration’.

Deal

Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, the free movement model is effectively maintained for those EU nationals and their family members currently here as well as those who arrive up until the end of the transition period, currently set to run until 31 December 2020.

Central to the Withdrawal Agreement is the EU Settlement Scheme, a mandatory registration system which opened to the general public on 21 January 2019. Regardless of whether there is a deal or not, all EU nationals, and their family members, resident in the UK by the time the UK leaves the EU, must register under the Scheme.

However, if the deal goes through Parliament then the EU Settlement Scheme will be extended to EU citizens, and their family members, arriving up until 31 December 2020.

Or no deal

We now know that in a no-deal scenario, free movement will end and any EU nationals arriving after 29 March 2019, and wishing to stay in the UK beyond 3 months, will have to apply for permission to remain in the UK. These people must apply for European Temporary Leave to Remain.

And the clue is in the title: this will give EU nationals, and their family members, temporary permission to stay in the UK for a period of 36 months. This form of leave is non-extendable and does not lead to indefinite leave to remain.  After 36 months, individuals will face two options: switch onto a category under the new immigration system which commences on 1 January 2021, and which may involve taking a job which complies with a minimum income threshold of £30,000, as personally favoured by the Prime Minister, or… leave the UK.  Those who stay on without leave commit a criminal offence.

Irish citizens are exempt from having to apply for European Temporary Leave to Remain as they will continue to have a right to enter and live in the UK under the Common Travel Area arrangements.

Tough on immigration

As author of the Government’s Hostile Environment policy, introduced while she was Home Secretary, Theresa May has been genuinely ‘tough on immigrants’, no more so than the Windrush generation.  And, as Prime Minister, she shows no sign of relenting.

The Government recently scrapped the £65 EU Settlement Scheme registration fee.  Was this belated recognition that long-term EU residents, allowed to come here under free movement and who have contributed to society, should not have to pay for the privilege of remaining here?

It appears that under the current Government, we cannot expect anything other than a tougher stance on immigration, a stance which is pejoratively exacerbated by a no-deal scenario.

Louis MacWilliam

Louis MacWilliam

Louis MacWilliam
Associate Solicitor
Business Immigration Team
LMacWilliam@lawBlacks.com
0113 322 2842
@LouisLawBlacks

Posted in Business Immigration | Leave a comment

Not-quite-death knell for joint lives maintenance

Just when family lawyers thought that we were out of joint-lives maintenance orders, a recent case has brought us back in.

In Quan v Bray [2018] EWHC 3558 (Fam) , heard in the latter stages of 2018, Mr Justice Mostyn decided that in the particular circumstances of this case, particularly that the wife would not be able to adjust to the termination of spousal maintenance without undue hardship, an order was appropriate for the payment of spousal maintenance for the husband and wife’s joint lives.

This decision is in stark contrast to recent cases; in particular the case of Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727 which many family lawyers thought had ‘sounded the death knell’ for joint lives spousal maintenance orders.

The issue of spousal maintenance (formally known as periodical payments orders) is governed by section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, subsection(1)a) providing that the court may make “an order that either party to the marriage shall make to the other such periodical payments, for such term, as may be specified in the order”

Theoretically, the ‘term’ for such payments is not defined and so one party to the divorce can be ordered to pay maintenance to his or her spouse for the rest of their lives. The reaction to this from the potential payee is often one of horror; however section 25A gives some degree of respite by stating: “it shall be the duty of the court to consider whether it would be appropriate so to exercise those powers that the financial obligations of each party towards the other will be terminated as soon after the grant of the decree as the court considers just and reasonable”.

This is more commonly known as the ‘clean break’ and following the case of Waggott v Waggott it was thought that the court would from now on be more ready to move away from joint lives orders and instead favour a clean break between divorcing couples as soon as possible. Quan v Bray suggests otherwise.

So what does the recent decision tell us? Well, as ever, every case is different. The fact remains that despite the case law, the statute still provides the mechanism for spousal maintenance to be paid for the rest of the divorced couples’ lives. The family court has a huge range of discretion and in cases where one person may not be able to adapt financially to a life away from their former spouse, a longer and in some circumstances indefinite order for maintenance can be made.

Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith
Associate Solicitor
Family Law Team
AJSmith@LawBlacks.com
0113 3222807
@AndyLawBlacks

Posted in Family Law | Leave a comment

‘Christmas Day becomes Divorce Day’

As 2018 drew to a close and people celebrated the start of a New Year, others began the divorce process as it was revealed that a total of 455 applications were made between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. 26 people submitted applications on Christmas Eve, 13 on Christmas Day, 23 on Boxing Day and 77 on New Year’s Day.

Ammanda Major from relationship support charity Relate comments on the statistics indicating that the additional stress of Christmas triggers a problem as “Pressures can build up when people are spending an extended period of time together”. The introduction of the online divorce application process is likely to have helped spouses in this predicament.

What impact has the online divorce petition service had on divorce rates?

Since May 2018 spouses have been able to complete the divorce application process using the internet. The online divorce petition service has allowed those wishing to obtain a divorce an easier access to these means. The service provides access for couples seeking a divorce at all times of the year. The ability for an application to be filled in online, fees paid through the system and documents uploaded means that there is no delay for spouses in sending the divorce paperwork. The ease and speed of this process in a few clicks may have attracted those over the Christmas period.

The online service has apparently resulted in a reduced number of errors in application forms. Records show that there has been a decrease from 40% to 1%. The popularity of the service is proven by the 23,000 applications which have been made since this service was launched with 85% of users being apparently satisfied with this service and the additional introduction of the online civil money claims service.

What does this mean for divorce rates in the future?

Divorce rates for opposite-sex couples in England and Wales are still at their lowest level since 1973, according to the latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics. In 2017, there was a decrease of 5% on the previous year. The steady decline in marriages could be down to the increasing number of couples choosing to cohabit. The online divorce petition service is however, likely to make it an easier process to begin the divorce process and may result in rates increasing.

Why seek assistance from a solicitor?

The need and support of a solicitor is however not to be forgotten, and there is still a consensus they will always be required in the divorce process. The filing of divorce petitions may not be as simple for some, for example spouses having name complications on marriage certificates or the need for assistance in the difficulty of having to prove adultery. These issues can be unsettling for clients to undertake alone and the online service is lacking in the provision of support and assistance. Some applicants have experienced the Court ’losing’ petitions resulting in months of delays. Petitions relying on adultery have also resulted in defended divorces due to the lack of admission and no proof. It is therefore crucial spouses do their research and benefit from the support that solicitors offer before committing their full reliance online. There are various nuances regarding the completion of divorce petitions which are not always apparent from the application form or indeed the additional guidance. It is very important not to rely on the internet and only the internet as unfortunately not all cases will proceed efficiently.

Ellie Stansfield

Ellie Stansfield
Paralegal
Family Law Team
EStansfield@lawblacks.com
0113 322 2855

Posted in Family Law | Leave a comment

GDPR – Organisations Continue To Adapt

GDPR and the Data Protection Act came into force in May 2018.  There was some sense of foreboding as we built up to the introduction, there was no transition period just a new and extensive set of rules and regulations to replace and update the Data Protection Act 1998.  The legislation is not a one off exhortation to get data protection issues sorted but a new set of rules that apply and will continue to apply, backed up with an enforcement regime in the form of the ICO.  The legislation was introduced to cope with the significant developments in the way data can now be collected, used and transferred.

Many businesses started early but in my experience many left it to around Christmas 2017 to start to introduce new systems and educate employees to work towards compliance.  If the 1998 Act was being followed then this was a solid platform in terms of the requirements of GDPR. A number of high profile data breaches have shown why the legislation should be an integral part of commercial life.

We have had many requests for advice on various parts of the new legislation. Here are just a few thoughts based on those requests:-

  1. Employee engagement can still be patchy, in many cases a data breach will be down to human error.  Organisations should continue to prioritise data protection.  The fines can be significant.
  2. There is an unnecessarily cautious approach in relation to reporting data breaches and this is reflected in comments by the ICO.  The legislation sets out when a report should be made and not every breach should be reported to the ICO.  There is clearly some misunderstanding here in relation to the legislation.
  3. Equally there may be under-recording in your own internal records.  A data breach should be noted, even if it isn’t reported to the ICO.  Organisations should maintain a data breach register.
  4. Data breaches are happening everyday around the country, one common example being emails incorrectly addressed.  Again, this is about employee training and engagement.  As an example, an email chain should not be forwarded unless it has been previously checked for the personal data of a third party.  Good habits will take time.
  5. We should all treat the data of our clients and customers as we would expect our own data to be treated by organisations we hand it over to.  Personal data is not just digital personal data but also paper copies and paper may be left lying around or carelessly discarded.  This is basic stuff which the ICO wouldn’t be impressed with if there was a serious data breach.
  6. The Morrisons’ litigation has upped the stakes as far as Employers are concerned.  It appears that Companies can be vicariously liable for a malicious data breach by an Employee.  In the Morrisons case this prompted group litigation against the Company.  There is no need in these cases to show a direct financial loss.  Whilst group litigation is difficult to organise and bring under the new rules, there will be claims companies looking out for appropriate cases and who will monitor the ICO’s website in relation to data breaches.
  7. The ICO has good public engagement and publishes information on a regular basis including on its website and through blogs.  You can sign up to receive its updates.
  8. The ICO is quite happy to go after public bodies as part of its role having recently issued an Enforcement Notice against the Metropolitan Police in relation to its Gang Matrix.  This can be found on its website.  It is an interesting example of the ICO working through the data protection principles and identifying breaches against these.
  9. The Data Subject Access Request Rules have changed and you should have procedures in place to deal with these.  There is no requirement to make a request in a particular format so there should be some process in place to identify a request and for the appropriate people to deal with them.  If the request is extensive you can extend the period for a response by up to a further 2 months under the Data Protection Act 2018. An employer who receives a confidential employment reference can refuse to disclose it, this is a change to the rule in the 1998 Act.
  10. There is probably an underuse of data sharing agreements where data is shared by a data controller.  These agreements need not be complex in most cases but steps should be taken.  Equally, privacy notices should be used and issued where appropriate, including to employees and potential recruits to a business.  There should be a regular review of privacy notices.  Particular care should be taken when you are processing sensitive or special category data such as medical records.
  11. There have been some fines under the old rules which would have been much more significant under the new legislation.  Fines can now be up to €20,000,000 or 4% of global annual turnover.  The Uber case was the subject of a ICO press release on 27 November 2018.  This is an interesting read in terms of the approach that the ICO takes.  Uber was fined £385,000 under the old rules but this would have been much higher if the breach had taken place after 25 May 2018.  We shall watch with interest how the situation develops in relation to the Marriot Hotel breach where the records of 500 million customers have been compromised in a data breach.
  12. There may be some confusion as to whether an organisation needs a formal appointment of Data Protection Officer. If a DPO is appointed then there should be some degree of independence associated with the role.  Your IT provider should not also provide DPO services.
  13. Organisations should look at the use of Data Protection Impact Assessments.  The legislation sets out instances where these might be required including the introduction of new technology.
  14. Don’t forget your email and other electronic marketing is not only subject to GDPR but also the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.  These are due an update but the existing Regulations continue to apply.

Keep an eye on your data, your systems and your documents to ensure Employee engagement in 2019 and beyond.  Data protection should be dealt with at a senior level and be a permanent feature on management agendas.

Iain Jenkins

Iain Jenkins

Iain Jenkins
Legal Director
Employment Team
0113 227 9308
IJenkins@LawBlacks.com

Posted in Employment Law | Leave a comment

Parental responsibility and your child’s education

If your child is approaching school age and needs to start school in September 2019 you need to complete your application for their place at a primary school soon (the deadline for admissions being 15 January 2019).

But what if there is a disagreement on aspects of a child’s education?

Choosing a child’s school

All those with Parental Responsibility (PR) for a child have the right to be involved in major decisions about that child, including in relation to the child’s education.   It is important to remember that although it is often the child’s biological parents that have PR for a child in some circumstances others may share PR, like a step-parent, guardian or grandparent.

If your child usually lives with you, you may be used to making day-to-day decisions about their arrangements.  Once you start thinking about school applications you may find it helpful to discuss your intentions with the other parent (or those with PR) as soon as possible. This might include you discussing your reasons for selecting a particular school, inviting them to visit the school and sharing important information about the school.  Ideally you will be able to agree on the proposed school and make the relevant application together.

If agreement can’t be reached:

Of course things are not always that simple and if agreement is not reached, you may need assistance to resolve matters.

You may wish to instruct a solicitor to correspond on your behalf about the arrangements for the child. Your solicitor can also discuss with you other forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation or collaborative law.

If agreement is not reached, either parent may decide to make a court application for a Specific Issue Order, for the Court to determine the specific issue about the child’s schooling.  If an application is made, the Court will order what they think is in the child’s best interest; the child’s welfare being the Court’s paramount consideration. The Court’s decision will still have to take into account the school’s availability to accommodate the child.

It is important to seek legal advice in advance of issuing an application at Court as, once the Court are involved with the child, they could make other orders about the arrangements for that child, even if that wasn’t the intention in your initial application.

Charlotte Gannon

 

Charlotte Gannon
Solicitor
Family Law Team
CGannon@LawBlacks.com
0113 322 2852
@CGLawBlacks

Posted in Family Law | Leave a comment

When tough talk becomes reality: the UK’s new immigration policy

After much apparent internal division within Cabinet, the Government today released its White Paper on the UK’s new immigration policy. The headline features, which may alarm businesses, are that there will be no preferential treatment for EU nationals and that there will be an as- yet- undetermined minimum income threshold, potentially at £30,000, which would restrict migration to higher earners.

Brexit and EU citizens’ rights

EU nationals can, for the time being at least, come to the UK under free movement provisions and take employment of any kind, thereby providing a fluid labour market for UK businesses, responsive to the needs of the economy.

Following Brexit, however, all EU nationals will be subject to the new EU Settlement Scheme, the mandatory system of registration for all EU nationals.  If there is a deal then free movement will be preserved for EU nationals arriving up until 31 December 2020. If there is no-deal, however, then free movement will end on 29 March 2019 and only EU nationals resident in the UK by that date will be eligible for the Scheme.

The White Paper

Currently non-EU nationals looking to work in the UK must be sponsored under Tier 2 of the points-based system.  Tier 2 is reviled by business leaders for being highly bureaucratic, costly and restrictive in terms of who can be brought over. Yet alarmingly, the government proposes to extend the sponsorship system to EU nationals.

Granted, there are some limited liberalising measures: out goes the monthly allocation limit and the requirement to fulfil a ‘resident labour market test’, a means to demonstrate a position cannot be filled by a settled worker.  The general minimum skill level is also lowered from RQF level 6 to 3, allowing for lower skilled workers, in theory, to qualify for the Scheme.

This skills reduction is potentially illusory, however, given the move to have a consultation on the minimum income threshold, which the Prime Minister favours to be a whopping £30,000. Such a measure would restrict available positions to EU nationals to higher paid jobs in the 25th percentile of earnings.   Moreover, employers will have to bear high costs to employ EU migrants.  This includes the Immigration Skills Charge, at £1,000 per year per migrant.  To top it off, the sponsoring employer must have water-tight HR systems in place or risk their licence being potentially revoked following an unannounced visit – a measure which would immediately terminate the employment of all sponsored employees.

Louis MacWilliam

Louis MacWilliam

Louis MacWilliam
Associate Solicitor
Business Immigration Team
LMacWilliam@lawBlacks.com
0113 322 2842
@LouisLawBlacks

Posted in Business Immigration | Leave a comment

Home Office drop Tier 1 suspension bombshell (followed by a swift and silent back-track)

On 5 November 2018 came the seemingly out of the blue announcement that the Tier 1 Investor visa route was to be suspended in two days’ time.  The media had been briefed overnight with all major outlets running prominent pieces about this dramatic development.

Wealthy individuals, and immigration practitioners alike, went into panic mode, as it appeared that the primary route for rich migrants seeking visas to the UK through investment was being closed down.  However, five days after the supposed suspension, it transpired that the Investor route had in fact not been suspended after all.  And how did the Home Office communicate this U-turn? Through a three-line email which emerged from correspondence with the Immigration Law Practitioner’s Association.

With this ‘non-suspension’, however, came various clues as to how this scheme will look in the future. And the Home Office has confirmed that reform is coming and a further announcement will be made in due course.

Background

The Tier 1 Investor route was introduced in 2008 under the points-based system. In the first three quarters of this year, 284 initial Investor visas were granted. Under this route the key requirements are that the individual has held at least £2 million, for three months prior to applying, for the purposes of investing in the UK. Unlike with other visa categories which lead to settlement, there is no English language requirement.

What will change?

When the route was [not] closed down last week, the Home Office stated the route was being suspended pending the introduction of new measures, including:

  • comprehensive auditing of the migrant’s financial and business interests by a UK firm;
  • a requirement to have held the £2 million for two years, rather than three months at present;
  • excluding investment by way of gilts; and
  • investment by way of pooled, government supported investments, including in small and medium-sized businesses.

Why last week?

These changes might attract public sympathy; hence the fanfare of suspension, but it still seemed a strange time to be taking such action, amidst the turmoil of Brexit wholesale changes to immigration which are around the corner.

The principle behind the Tier 1 Investor route is to facilitate the entry to the UK of ‘high-net-worth individuals making a substantial financial investment in the UK’.  However, as far back as 2014 the MAC noted that, beyond this self-evident statement, the underlying policy objective of the Investor route was “not readily apparent”.  The report was particularly critical of investment by way of gilts, unsurprising perhaps, given that a gilt is merely a loan to Government which is then returned to the investor at a given period. The MAC noted that it was the investors themselves who benefitted from the visa, rather than the UK.

But these findings were made back in 2014 and seemed to cause little consternation to the Government, until now. Does this go back to the Salisbury attack, following which the Home Office committed to reviewing the right of more than 700 wealthy Russians to live in the UK? As I wrote about in an earlier piece, the Salisbury attack appeared to directly lead to Roman Abramovich’s visa application being put on hold.  The man whose reputedly ill-gotten gains were welcomed with open arms was now outcast (he is now an Israeli national and has reportedly withdrawn his Investor visa).

Regardless of motive, the manner in which this has been handled seems rather incompetent, even by Home Office standards.  The highly-politicised area of immigration law is already absurdly complex and opaque, without the Home Office not only committing a U-turn, but then failing to properly tell anyone about it!

Louis MacWilliam

Louis MacWilliam

Louis MacWilliam
Associate Solicitor
Business Immigration Team
LMacWilliam@lawBlacks.com
0113 322 2842
@LouisLawBlacks

Posted in Business Immigration | Leave a comment