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).
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.
NHS regulations require most non-EU citizens to pay up to 150 percent of the cost of healthcare treatment. A man who was being treated for cancer challenged this in the courts, arguing that the regulations did not comply with equality laws.
Immigration: children who are eligible for leave to remain whose parents have been convicted of a crime (KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Home Office policy says that children who are eligible to apply for leave to remain but whose parents are ‘foreign criminals’ must either be deported with the parent or remain in the UK without them. We are concerned that this breaches the child’s right to family life, and we intervened in a case seeking to challenge the Home Office policy.
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.
Bedroom tax: under what circumstances is a spare room justifiable? (R (Daly and others) (formerly known as MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
Housing benefit regulations reduce the amount of benefit available to people who have a spare bedroom. Seven people who had lost some of their benefit challenged the Department for Work and Pensions in the Supreme Court.
A woman who was homeless had a range of serious mental health problems applied to the council to be housed. The council determined that she did not have the mental capacity to apply as homeless. She challenged this through the courts. The County Court had said it was bound by the outcome of an earlier case which found that people who lack capacity cannot make homeless applications.
Does planning policy discriminate against Gypsy/Roma/Traveller people who have stopped travelling due to age and disability? (R (Lisa Smith) v SSH, CLG and (2) NWLDC and Amos Willshore (Interested Party) and four interveners)
We intervened in this case to seek to protect the rights of Gypsies and Travellers who have ceased to travel, because of age or disability, not to be discriminated against.
Full case name:
R (Lisa Smith) v (1) Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and (2) North West Leicestershire District Council and Amos Willshore (Interested Party) and four interveners:
- Equality and Human Rights Commission
- National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups
- Friends Families and Travellers London Gypsies and Southark Travellers Action Group