Immigration rules: extending domestic violence protection to refugees (R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
The wife of a refugee was granted temporary leave to remain in the UK. When domestic violence forced her to leave her husband, immigration rules meant she was no longer eligible for indefinite leave to remain. Had her partner been a British citizen or had settled immigration status, she would still be eligible for indefinite leave to remain under the Home Office’s domestic violence concession. However, the concession did not apply to partners of refugees. The woman unsuccessfully challenged the rules in the Court of Session (Outer House), and brought an appeal to the Court of Session (Inner House).
Home repossession: what reasonable adjustments should mortgage providers make? (Green v Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd )
A woman who became unable to work because she was depressed asked her mortgage provider to transfer her from a repayment mortgage to an interest-only plan. This would have reduced her monthly payments sufficiently that her housing benefit would cover it. The mortgage company refused. She challenged their decision, arguing that they had discriminated against her by refusing to make reasonable adjustments on the grounds of her depression.
A man with mental health conditions attempted to appeal the outcome of an unsuccessful Employment Tribunal case. He missed the deadline by one hour and his appeal was refused by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). He took his case to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the EAT had discriminated against him.
Hillingdon Council’s housing rules said that a person must have lived in the area for at least ten years before they could apply for a house. The council refused two people, a refugee who had been given permission to stay in the UK and an Irish Traveller, on these grounds. We saw this as discriminatory and we intervened in their cases in the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal.
Challenging the Home Secretary’s review of the way payments are calculated for asylum seekers (R (Nyamayaro and Okolo) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department)
An asylum seeker lost 30 per cent of her financial support after the Home Office changed how it calculates payments. She raised a Judicial Review, which was unsuccessful. She appealed. We intervened in the case because we were concerned that the Home Secretary hadn’t given enough consideration to the impact on human rights or equality laws.
Protecting children seeking asylum from being detained based on appearance (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
A person seeking asylum arrived in the UK at the age of 16. Officials thought he looked over 18 and he was held in immigration detention. He was later found to have told the truth about his age. The Home Office’s own rules say that unaccompanied children should not be detained. The person seeking asylum unsuccessfully challenged this in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), and again in the Upper Tribunal. He then appealed the UT’s decision in the Court of Appeal. We intervened in the Court of Appeal to challenge guidance from the Home Secretary which said that people seeking asylum who look over 18 can be treated as adults.
Challenging the Home Office’s Removal Notice Window (RNW) policy (R ((1) FB & (2) Medical Justice) v SSHD)
We intervened in a challenge regarding a Home Office policy, which gave people sometimes as little as 72 hours’ notice before they can be deported from the UK without further warning. The policy was ruled to be unlawful by the courts.
Highlighting the lack of interim relief available to discrimination claimants (Steer v Stormsure Ltd)
A woman alleged that she was sexually harassed by her colleague and victimised by her employer when she complained about it. She resigned from her employment, claiming that she had been constructively dismissed as a result of her employer’s actions and applied for interim relief, which was rejected. We were involved in the subsequent appeals in order to highlight the lack of interim relief available to discrimination claimants and the problems associated with this.
Challenging the ‘two-child limit’ rule (R (on the application of SC and CB and their children) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 provides that child tax credit and its replacement universal credit will not be payable to any 3rd or subsequent children in a family born after 6th April 2017 (subject to some exceptions). This is known as the ‘two child rule’.
SC and CB each had a baby after 6th April 2017 and do not receive any tax credits for those children.