Chikwamba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

yankeegirl · Post by **yankeegirl** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:25 pm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ikwa-1.htm

Judgments - Chikwamba (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Chikwamba (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

I'm not sure of the broader implications of this, but I thought I'd put it out there. Seems to be a really good thing!

nevadawipes · Post by **nevadawipes** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:41 pm

great link!

cheers

4444 · Post by **4444** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:19 am

yankeegirl wrote:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ikwa-1.htm

I'm not sure of the broader implications of this, but I thought I'd put it out there. Seems to be a really good thing!

yes its a good thing. its now easier to make an application under article 8 (family life ) grounds in this country now than before. so its good news for people who do not have leave to remain but who have now married to someone settled in UK.

loi · Post by **loi** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm

l just want to find out if this applies to married couples only because l have been with my partner for nine years and at the moment we cant get married because he does not have legal status in the uk. and also is there a chance of getting COA if we apply?

vinny · Post by **vinny** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:47 am

See also Article 8 of the ECHR - interim casework instruction (Chikwamba and others).

vinny · Post by **vinny** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:01 am

An interesting JR on reasonableness and proportionality.

Fee cheque bounces

Forrester, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 2307 (Admin) (05 September 2008) wrote:16. This is a classic example of a thoroughly unreasonable and disproportionate, inflexible, application of a policy, without the slightest regard for the facts of the case, or indeed elementary common sense and humanity. Such an approach diminishes, rather than encourages, respect for the policy in question....

Note that

Mine & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2337 (Admin) (09 September 2011) wrote:33. ... The observation of Sullivan J in R (Forrester) v SSHD [2008] EWHC 2307 (Admin) at [16] relied on by the Claimants was not intended to be a rule of general application in such cases.