All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
Given the previous unlawful policy had been introduced by the Defendant, although there was no obligation upon the Defendant to grant the Claimant indefinite leave to remain, and as she had previously applied a policy of considering the period individuals had spent out of the country as contributing towards the four years leave required, the failure to do so in this case rendered the decision flawed and it was thus quashed.
24 July 2012
John Howell QC
(1) In April and November 2006, the Defendant changed the rules governing the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. These changes were later held to be unlawful. Those admitted before April 2006 had to spend four continuous years with leave in the UK before they became eligible for indefinite leave to remain. The introduced changes resulted in some migrants moving elsewhere.
(2) The Claimant in this case challenged the Defendant's refusal to grant him indefinite leave to remain. Had he not responded to the changes unlawfully introduced, he would have spent the required time in the UK.
(3) The Claimant contends that his legitimate expectation entitled him to indefinite leave to remain given his circumstances. Further, it was alleged that because the Defendant caused him not to meet the necessary criteria, and she has since waived the need to meet them in other cases, he was entitled to be granted indefinite leave to remain.
To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).
To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu.
Keeping you up to date with the latest developments in education law.