Duncan Lewis secures injunction preventing removal of vulnerable client to France under one in one out policy (31 July 2026)

A last-minute legal challenge has prevented the removal of a vulnerable client from the UK, after Duncan Lewis Solicitors secured a High Court injunction a day before he was due to be deported to France.

The case, which turned on a disputed trafficking claim and an inadmissibility decision by the Home Office, has since resulted in a significant reversal of the Secretary of State's position, sparing the Claimant from removal and securing substantive consideration of his asylum claim within the United Kingdom.

Background

The Claimant instructed Duncan Lewis Solicitors following an attendance at a legal surgery at an Immigration Removal Centre. At the time, he had been served with a Notice of Intent, indicating the Secretary of State's intention to declare any protection claim inadmissible and remove him to France.

Duncan Lewis assisted the Claimant with making detailed representations as to why his claim should not be declared inadmissible and why he should remain in the United Kingdom. He was also assisted with his trafficking claim, with the Secretary of State previously issuing him with a negative reasonable grounds decision.

The Secretary of State refused to reconsider the Claimant's reasonable grounds decision and declared his asylum claim as inadmissible. He was issued with removal directions to France.

Following pre-action correspondence, an urgent application for Judicial Review was issued in the High Court, seeking urgent interim relief. The day before the Claimant's scheduled removal from the United Kingdom and within hours of the application being made, a prohibitory injunction was issued by the High Court, prohibiting the Claimant's removal pending the conclusion of the Judicial Review proceedings.

Since issuing, the Secretary of State has released the Claimant from immigration detention, issued him with a positive reasonable grounds decision and has stated the Claimant will no longer be subjected to inadmissibility proceedings, with his asylum claim now being substantively considered within the United Kingdom.

On the success of Duncan Lewis Solicitors in his case, the Claimant stated;

"… encountering a gentleman of such profound intellect, high integrity, and flawless politeness as yourself was a magnificent light and an unforgettable blessing. Through your immense expertise and moral stature, you showed me the true meaning of support. Words are simply too small to convey my gratitude, but my respect and admiration for your character will remain enduring and permanent."

The outcome demonstrates the value of urgent, well-prepared judicial review action in cases where inadmissibility decisions threaten to remove individuals with unresolved trafficking claims. For the Claimant, it marks not only an escape from removal, but the beginning of a substantive hearing of his asylum claim in the UK.

The team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors were Tom Leahy (Supervising Solicitor). 

Counsel instructed was Sandra Akinbolu of The 36 Group.

About Tom Leahy

Tom Leahy is a Solicitor in the Immigration department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. He predominantly assists those seeking asylum, individuals submitting further representations, and clients with appeals before the First-tier and Upper Tribunal. He has significant experience assisting victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, as well as representing victims of domestic abuse. Tom also acts on a range of judicial review matters, including legal challenges against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, age dispute matters, and CART judicial reviews.

About Duncan Lewis Solicitors

Duncan Lewis Solicitors is a national law firm with offices across England and Wales, recognised for its expertise in immigration and asylum law, judicial review, and public law. The firm regularly represents vulnerable individuals, including victims of trafficking and modern slavery, unaccompanied minors, and those with mental health difficulties, in complex and time-critical legal challenges against the Home Office.