Public Law Solicitors

by James Packer

Since the article by Kat Hacker "The Battle Continues" in September the battleground has shifted:

Outstanding applications

Having previously insisted that for ‘administrative reasons’ she required a minimum of four months to issue acknowledgements of permission to work (PTW), and having maintained that stance post the hearing in ZO while she ‘considered’ that judgment, the Secretary of State, on the eve of the hearing of our application for mandatory Orders that the Secretary of State issue each of our clients with PTW, granted every one of our listed clients either PTW, or a form of leave that enabled them to take up employment. The battlefield was surrendered without a shot being fired.

All of our clients who requested it prior to August 2010 should now have PTW.

If you have an application that remains outstanding please contact the Public Law Department without delay.

Damages

The conflict has now moved to the question of whether or not those denied PTW on the basis that they were a repeat asylum applicant are entitled to damages. This was set down for a hearing on 26 October 2010 in a test case run by Duncan Lewis that is to decide the applicable principles for these claims. All other damages claims have been stayed behind this case. However, this date had to be vacated as the exchange of skeletons threw up more issues than anticipated between the parties, and it was agreed that the time estimate would not suffice.

Staying a case behind the lead case

However, one important detail has already emerged. The Secretary of State is attempting to leave open the question of whether or not the failure to issue PTW was lawful, and attempting to argue that she was entitled to await the outcome of the ZO litigation before deciding to issue PTW. Needless to say, we do accept that view.

Care should therefore be taken in agreeing consent orders with t-sols, in cases where the client has either been granted leave or PTW. They will suggest an order that states that the parties agree that the only remaining issue is damages, and that the matter should be stayed behind our lead case. It would be wise to respond refusing to sign such an Order unless the preamble accepts that the failure to provide PTW was unlawful. Tricky issues also arise about the date upon which access to the employment market should have been arranged; please feel free to contact me to discuss the issue.