Search for: "Reed v. Secretary of State"
Results 1 - 20
of 285
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2014, 1:32 am
Background Last week the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
19 Aug 2015, 1:30 am
The Supreme Court in R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57 held by a 3:2 majority that the blanket requirement that all applicants for a student loan have “indefinite leave to remain” is discriminatory and must be amended by the Government. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 4:10 am
They argued that this was the necessary implication of the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Munir v Secretary of State [2012] 1 WLR 2192 and Alvi (which were heard together) that the power of the Secretary of State to make or vary the Immigration Rules was wholly statutory and not an exercise of prerogative power: [27]. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:09 am
In line with his earlier judgment in Hesham Ali (case comment here), Lord Reed rejected the Secretary of State’s submissions that in cases of non-settled migrants, the question is whether the state owed them a positive obligation to grant leave to remain, rather than whether there had been an interference with art 8 which could be justified. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm
On 18 June 2014 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 2:48 am
Lord Reed and Lord Kerr dissented stating that the critical factors in the ECtHR decision of Allen should have been followed and consequently it is necessary for the Secretary of State to examine the judgment of the Court of Appeal to determine whether the criteria of s 133 were satisfied. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 11:10 am
The United States Supreme Court will hear argument today in Doe #1 v. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 1:45 am
The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 3:00 am
Giving the lead judgment Lord Reed stated that the decisions taken to authorise the segregation under the Prison Rules 1999, rule 45(2), was not taken by the Secretary of State but instead by a senior prison officer. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 2:28 am
Lord Reed gave a short concurring judgment. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 4:15 am
In relation to the first issue, Lord Reed in his judgment (with which Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge agreed) noted that the decisions taken under rule 45(2) in these two cases were not taken by the Secretary of State, but instead by a senior prison officer or “operational manager”. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 5:29 am
RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and KM v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 18 – 19 June 2012. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 12:02 pm
In Doe #1 v. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 7:36 am
In Agyarko [2017] UKSC 11, Lord Reed examined Jeunesse and judged that the persistence of family life would be precarious if created when an applicant was in the UK unlawfully or was “entitled to remain in the UK only temporarily”. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 8:46 am
The lawfulness of the cap was addressed by the Supreme Court in R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:26 pm
The Washington Attorney General will argue the case tomorrow on behalf of the State’s Secretary of State, and urge the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit ruling. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 3:38 am
He stated that though the Secretary of State failed to show how the Regulations comply with art 3(1), it is in the political, rather than the legal, arena that the consequences should be played out. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 1:49 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Harrison, R (on the application of) v Birmingham Magistrate’s Court & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 332 (25 March 2011) Secretary of State for the Home Department v MK (Tunisia) [2011] EWCA Civ 333 (25 March 2011) Brook v Reed [2011] EWCA Civ 331 (25 March 2011) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Bowker & Anor (t/a Lagopus Services) v The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds [2011]… [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 1:56 am
However perhaps the most interesting aspect is the robustness with which the Justices rejected the argument for the Secretary of State for a purposive construction which would have permitted interest to be taken into account. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:37 am
” Supported by the interveners – Bail for Immigration Detainees and Medical Justice – O successfully argued that the authority of R (Francis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Bail for Immigration Detainees intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 718 had been wrongly decided. [read post]
