Fadiga & Co Solicitors

Immigration appeals: ‘New matter’ or new problem?
Any immigration practitioner appreciates that upon refusal of a claim that carries a right of appeal by the Home Office, grounds of appeal will be required in order to lodge an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Historically, both the Home Office and especially the Tribunals have been flocked by last-minute evidence purporting to run new arguments (or new matters) which were not contained in the original grounds of appeal or w...
Continue Reading

Fadiga & Co is a reputable London based law firm. Our specialist immigration and human rights lawyers can assist with all aspects of your immigration and human rights matters. Please call us today on 02086722617 or visit www.fadigaandco.com

Fadiga & Co is a specialist London based litigation law firm. Our expert litigation lawyers can assist you with the resolution of all your civil disputes . Whether through arbitration, mediation or litigation. For more information, please call us on 02086722617 or visit www.fadigaandco.com

High Court orders suspension of Home Office policy of deportations without warning- 15 March 2019 Mr Justice Walker finds there are "grounds for real concern about access to justice"
Medical Justice: High Court orders suspension of Home Office policy of deportations without warning 15 March 2019...
Continue Reading

NEW CHANGES TO THE UK IMMIGRATION RULES
On 7th March 2019, the Home Office introduced some Changes to the Immigration Rules.
Tier 1 business... The Rules will provide skilled business people access to two new visa routes to set up businesses in the UK. The Start-up visa route will be open to those starting a business for the first time in the UK, while the Innovator visa route will be for more experienced business people who have funds to invest in their business. Both routes will see endorsing bodies and business experts – rather than the Home Office – assessing applicants’ business ideas. This will make sure that the routes are focused on only the most innovative, viable and scalable businesses. Alongside these new routes, the Home Office is also bringing forward reforms to the Tier 1 (Investor) route. The reformed route will better protect the UK from illegally obtained funds, whilst ensuring that genuine investors have access to a viable visa route. Applicants will be required to prove that they have had control of the required £2 million for at least two years, rather than 90 days, or provide evidence of the source of those funds.
IF you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us on 00442086722617 or visit our website at www.fadigaandco.com
See More

Rogerson v Bolsover District Council [2019] EWCA Civ 226 Davies, Males LJ, Moor J A landlord who is contractually obliged to maintain or repair premises owes a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to all persons who are likely to be affected by defects in the premises, to ensure that they are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to property caused by a “relevant defect” (s.4(1), Defective Premises Act 1972; Encyclopedia para.2–0623).... A “relevant defect” is a defect in the state of the premises arising from, or continuing because of, an act or omission by the landlord which constitutes (or if he had notice of the defect would have constituted) a failure to carry out his obligation to the tenant to maintain or repair the premises: s.4(3). Ms Rogerson was the secure tenant of Bolsover District Council. It was an express term of the tenancy that the council would maintain the structure and exterior of the property. There was an inspection cover in her front lawn which gave access to the sewer below. In September 2014, she was mowing the lawn in the front garden of the property when her leg fell through the cover and was injured. She issued proceedings against the council under, inter alia, the Defective Premises Act 1972. The Deputy District Judge found that the council were obliged to have an inspection regime to look for possible defects with the inspection cover and that this had not been done. Accordingly, he held that there was a breach of s.4, 1972 Act. The Circuit Judge reversed that decision: there was no duty to inspect under s.4, merely a duty to take such care as was reasonable to ensure that occupiers were reasonable safe. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and restored the decision of the DDJ for different reasons. Section 4 did not impose a general duty to inspect premises for potential dangers. What was required by section 4 was likely to depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the council had carried out periodic inspections and it was (or should have been) obvious that the cover posed a hazard: there had been little or no maintenance work for many years and the mortar had deteriorated.
See More

La Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni a jugé que les candidats à un emploi n’ont pas à divulguer leur passé de délinquants juvéniles à leur futur employeur.
La Cour suprême a rejeté l’appel formé par le gouvernement contre une décision concernant les droits de l’homme, rendue en faveur d’un groupe de personnes invoquant que leurs condamnations passées étaient un frein a leur vie.
La Haute cour a juge qu’être obligé de révéler a son employeur son passé de délinquant juvénile était i...
Continue Reading

La Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni a jugé que les candidats à un emploi n’ont pas à divulguer leur passé de délinquants juvéniles à leur futur employeur.
La cour suprême décide qu’exiger des demandeurs d’emploi qu’ils révèlent leur passé de délinquants lors de leur candidature à un emploi constitue une violation du droit au respect de la vie privée garantit par l’article 8 de la convention européenne des droits de l’homme(CEDH). Pour plus d’informations sur la décision rendue, vous pouvez nous contacter au 02086722617 ou vous rendre sur le site internet www.fadigaandco.com

Fadiga & Co is a leading UK law firm.

The UK suprême Court held today that job applicants do not have to disclose past minor offenses to their prospective employers.
The Supreme Court held that , requesting job applicants to disclose past minor offenses in their job applications constitute a breach to private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For further information on the important of today’s ruling, please contact us on 02086722617 or visit www.fadigaandco.com

Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo [2018] EWHC 2296 (QB) Butcher J If an agreement confers exclusive possession of residential premises for a fixed or periodic term in consideration of a premium or periodic payments, it would usually be considered to be a tenancy: Street v Mountford [1985] 1 AC 809; (1985) 17 HLR 402. In 2015, the freehold owner of an office unit entered into an agreement with Camelot Guardian Management Ltd whereby Camelot was granted a right of possessi...on for the purpose of securing the property against trespassers by installing guardians to occupy it under licences. Camelot identified a number of individuals to occupy the building, including Mr Khoo. It granted him a licence entitling him to “share living space” in the building with others whom Camelot permitted to enter. It was a term of the licence that he was not to have exclusive possession and would vacate the building immediately once directed to do so by Camelot. He was required to make modest payments to Camelot under the licence. Camelot purported to terminate the licence. Mr Khoo contended that he had an assured shorthold tenancy. Camelot issued possession proceedings. The Recorder held that Mr Khoo was a licensee and made a possession order. The High Court dismissed an appeal. There was no suggestion of sham or pretence. The agreement did not confer exclusive possession on Mr Khoo. It was a typical licence agreement and had always been operated as such. The evident commercial purpose of the agreement was to secure the building against potential trespassers, not to create a tenancy.
See More

Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) payment needed
On 6 April 2015, the UK Government introduced a Health Surcharge payment requirement for non-EEA nationals who apply to come to the UK to work, study or join family for a period of more than 6 months.
When a record is created on the IHS portal, children are shown as exempt from IHS payment. This exemption is only applicable to children who qualify for Indefinite Leave to Enter/Remain and does not apply to those who qualify for... Limited leave to Enter/Remain.
For further information, please contact Fadiga & Co Solicitors on 02086722627 or visit www.fadigaandco.com
See More

EU SETTLEMENT SCHEME
This is the latest information on the EU Settlement Scheme for EU citizens in the UK. You are receiving this because you have requested email updates from the UK government.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union today set out information for EU citizens and their family members in the UK in the event of a no deal exit from the EU.
... The UK Government:
Confirms that if there is no deal, the EU Settlement Scheme will continue to be implemented, enabling EU citizens and their family members living in the UK by 29 March 2019 to secure their status and continue to be able to work, study, and access benefits and services in the UK on the same basis after we exit the EU as they do now. The scheme will be fully open by 30 March 2019 as planned.
Confirms that the Home Office will continue to look to grant status rather than refuse and in line with the UK commitment to be more generous in certain respects than the draft Withdrawal Agreement, a person will not be refused status under the EU Settlement Scheme because, for example, they are not economically active or they do not hold comprehensive sickness insurance. There would be some changes to the EU Settlement Scheme if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, and further details are set out in the policy document. In particular, as there will be no agreed implementation period, the application deadline will be brought forward to 31 December 2020.
You do not need to do anything for now. The EU Settlement Scheme will be fully open by 30 March 2019.
If you require further information, please call us on 02086722617 or visit www.fadigaandco.com

Image removed by sender.
See More

Home Office crackdown on money laundering through investor visa scheme.
The Home Office will will suspend issuing investor visas unless applicants can prove that the funds are from a legitimate source to be invested in a bonafide UK company.
Depending on the level of investment, an applicant can be fast tracked to indefinite leave to remain in the UK. ... Following a review, an applicant will now have to go through an audit of their financial interest to prove that they are not involved in money laundering.
The audits will have to be carried out by by regulated UK auditing firms.
For further information, please call us on 00442086722617 or visit www.fadigaandco.com
See More

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7xYIYWsS rs

Fadiga & Co is a London based law firm dedicated to resolving all kinds of issues pertaining to public law in the UK
We have extensive experience of advising, assisting and representing clients in relation to challenging the decisions of public bodies such as Government Departments, Health Authorities, Local Authorities where we believe decisions have not been made lawfully. Our team comprises of human rights and public law specialists who are always available to help. We can... assist clients with: • Contacting Public Bodies about decisions that we believe have not been lawfully made ; • Using formal Complaints Procedures; • Representing in Court Actions such as Judicial Reviews, County Court and High Court Actions for Declarations, Injunctions, Orders and Damages. We can represent clients in a wide range of public law claims including: • Community Care • Housing • Immigration • Nationality • Asylum • Social Service Matters • Disclosure and Barring Issues • Professional Regulatory Issues
Please call us now on 02086722617 or visit www.fadigaandco.com
See More

Home Office rolls out new UK Visa and Citizenship Application Service (UKVCAS) for in-country visa applications 5 November 2018
New online application form and new service centres to open across UK Home Office rolls out new UK Visa and Citizenship Application Service (UKVCAS) for in-country visa applications...
Continue Reading

Hyslop v 38/41 CHG Residents Co Ltd High Court (QBD), 5 November 2018 Freedman J
Before a landlord can forfeit a lease for breach of a covenant to pay service charges, the tenant must have admitted the breach, or a court, First Tier Tribunal or arbitral tribunal must have determined that the service charge is payable (s.81, Housing Act 1996; Encyclopedia para.1-3440).... The respondent was the freeholder of a building. Ms Hyslop was the leaseholder of one of the flats. In 2015, the respondent obtained a judgment from the FTT that Ms Hyslop owed service charges. In reliance on that judgment, the respondent proceeded to issue proceedings in the county court seeking to forfeit her lease. Ms Hyslop then obtained permission to appeal the FTT decision to the Upper Tribunal. That appeal was still outstanding when the forfeiture claim came before the county court. The county court made an order for the forfeiture of the lease, but suspended execution so as to allow Ms Hyslop to pay the service charge arrears. Ms Hyslop appealed to the High Court contending that the county court proceedings should have been stayed pending the determination of the Upper Tribunal: until that appeal was concluded, it could not be said that service charges had been determined to be payable. The appeal was allowed. The purpose of s.81 was that there should have been a final determination as to liability to pay service charges before any forfeiture proceedings were dealt with. The county court claim should have been stayed pending the Upper Tribunal appeal.
See More