Category: Legal Updates

The UK government has set an ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes in England over the next five years, yet recent data highlights a record-low rate of planning approvals. With planning permissions declining and developers facing economic and regulatory uncertainties, the path to achieving these targets remains challenging.

Planning Obstacles and Market Challenges

Recent statistics show that planning approvals are at their lowest level since records began in 1979, with only 31,562 housing projects granted permission in the year to June 2024. Developers are becoming more cautious due to:

• High property prices and mortgage rates discouraging new home buyers.
• Housing associations focusing on existing stock rather than new builds.
• Investor concerns over tax and regulatory changes, reducing funding for new developments.
• Planning system delays and opposition from local activists, slowing approvals.

While the government is exploring planning reforms such as “planning passports” to streamline approvals, these measures will take time to implement and their impact remains uncertain.

How GSC Solicitors Can Help

At GSC Solicitors LLP, we provide comprehensive legal support for real estate, planning, and property development matters. Our expertise spans planning applications, development projects, commercial and residential transactions, and property disputes. We work closely with developers, investors, and businesses to navigate complex legal requirements and overcome planning challenges.

Our team is well-versed in the evolving regulatory landscape, helping clients stay ahead of policy changes and secure successful outcomes in planning and real estate matters.

The Future of Housing and Planning

With planning reforms on the horizon and housing supply struggling to meet demand, developers, investors, and local authorities must be proactive in adapting to changes. Understanding planning laws, leveraging legal expertise, and strategically engaging with policymakers will be crucial in shaping the future of UK housing.

For expert legal guidance on planning law and real estate development, contact GSC Solicitors LLP today.

The Upper Tribunal has dismissed a judicial review in the case of R (EK & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR-2024-LON-002556), involving a Turkish Kurdish family separated during a Channel crossing attempt. Despite the parents’ efforts to reunite with their young children, aged nine and six, who arrived in the UK, the tribunal ruled against the judicial review, emphasising public interest considerations and the potential implications for future cases.

Background

The family was separated during a Channel crossing in July 2024, with the children entering the UK while the parents remained in France. On 21 August 2024, the parents applied for entry clearance to reunite with their children. Delays in processing led to judicial review proceedings initiated on 30 September 2024, arguing breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Section 55 duty regarding children’s welfare.

Initially, the Upper Tribunal granted an interim order, but the Home Office successfully challenged this, with the Court of Appeal setting it aside on 20 December 2024. Shortly after, on 30 December 2024, the Home Office issued refusals of entry clearance, citing concerns over creating a precedent that could encourage smugglers to exploit children as a means for parents to gain entry.

Judicial Review Proceedings

In January 2025, the parents sought to withdraw the judicial review, arguing that the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal rendered the case academic. However, the Home Office opposed the withdrawal, accusing the parents’ legal team of strategic manipulation to avoid a negative ruling and arguing that the case raised significant public interest issues.

The tribunal refused consent to withdraw the judicial review, agreeing that the case involved important public interest questions and could inform ongoing family law proceedings concerning the children’s best interests.

Tribunal’s Decision

The tribunal ultimately dismissed the judicial review, relying heavily on the Court of Appeal’s prior findings. It determined that:

• Article 8 (Right to Family Life): The tribunal found no breach of Article 8, as the Home Office’s decision prioritised public interest concerns, particularly the risk of encouraging dangerous smuggling practices.
• Article 3 (Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment): The distress experienced by the children did not meet the Article 3 threshold. The tribunal emphasised that reunification could feasibly occur in France, reducing the severity of the separation’s impact.

The tribunal also acknowledged the speculative nature of some Home Office arguments but ultimately accepted the government’s position that allowing the parents entry could incentivise harmful migration practices.

Implications and Conclusion

This case underscores the Home Office’s commitment to a firm stance on immigration controls, even at the risk of prolonged family separations. The tribunal’s decision highlights the tension between safeguarding public interest and upholding human rights, particularly the rights of children.

While the family may now have a clearer path to reunification in France, the prolonged separation raises concerns about the emotional and psychological toll on the young children involved. The case also sets a precedent regarding the government’s approach to similar family reunification claims, especially in contexts involving irregular migration.

Practitioners should closely monitor developments in this area, particularly the pending appeals before the First-tier Tribunal, which may further clarify the legal landscape concerning family reunification and the rights of children under the ECHR.

Need Expert Immigration Advice?

For personalised guidance and expert legal advice on immigration matters, including complex family reunification cases, contact GSC Solicitors. Our experienced immigration lawyers are dedicated to helping families navigate the legal process and achieve the best possible outcomes.

The Court of Appeal has ruled on the latest deprivation case, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Daci [2025] EWCA Civ 18, allowing the Home Secretary’s appeal but remitting the case to the Upper Tribunal to consider the Article 8 rights of the appellant. This case follows two other recent appeals by the Home Secretary in deprivation matters, marking a significant legal development in citizenship law.

Background

Mr. Daci, an Albanian national, arrived in the UK as a 17-year-old asylum seeker in 1998, using a false Kosovan identity. He was granted indefinite leave to remain as a refugee in 1999 and later naturalised as a British citizen under the false identity in 2004. However, in 2020, the Home Office discovered his true identity, leading to a deprivation of citizenship notice in 2021 under Section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Tribunal Decisions and Appeal

• First-Tier Tribunal (April 2022): Allowed Mr. Daci’s appeal against deprivation.
• Upper Tribunal (August 2023): Set aside the FTT decision but again ruled in Daci’s favour, citing improper exercise of discretion by the Home Secretary.
• Court of Appeal (2025): Overturned the Upper Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the Home Secretary had provided adequate reasons for exercising discretion but remitted the case for Article 8 ECHR considerations.

Key Legal Issues

The Court of Appeal assessed three critical legal points:

1. Discretion Under Section 40(3): The court found that the Home Secretary had properly exercised discretion and provided sufficient reasoning in the deprivation decision.
2. Lawfulness & Proportionality: The decision aligned with Home Office policy and was deemed not disproportionate.
3. Article 8 ECHR Claim: Since the Upper Tribunal had not considered Mr. Daci’s human rights arguments, the Court of Appeal remitted this issue for further review.

Implications for Future Cases

This ruling, alongside recent decisions in Chaudhry v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 16, provides further clarity on how courts handle deprivation cases under Section 40(3). Given the Home Office’s renewed focus on deprivation appeals, legal practitioners should stay updated on emerging case law, particularly on the reliance of Article 8 arguments in these appeals.

Looking Ahead

With two deprivation cases now returned to the tribunal and a potential Supreme Court challenge in Kolicaj, the trajectory of deprivation appeals remains uncertain. The recent ICIBI inspection highlights growing Home Office frustrations, especially as nearly 25% of deprivation appeals succeeded in 2022. Practitioners should closely monitor these developments and prepare for possible shifts in legal interpretations.

For expert legal insights on citizenship and deprivation cases, stay informed with our latest updates.

Recent amendments to the Home Office’s Good Character guidance have introduced significant barriers for refugees seeking naturalisation as British citizens. These changes, which took effect from 10 February 2025, are already preventing a substantial number of refugees from securing British citizenship based on their mode of entry into the UK. While described as a “clarification” rather than a change, the updated guidance is having severe consequences for those affected.

Key Changes in the Guidance For UK Naturalisation

Illegal Entry and Naturalisation

The revised guidance explicitly states that from 10 February 2025, any person applying for British citizenship who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, irrespective of how much time has passed since their entry.

• Before 10 February 2025: Illegal entry will still be considered, but applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• From 10 February 2025: Any applicant with a history of illegal entry will face an automatic presumption of refusal.

Currently, the policy allows the Home Office to refuse citizenship applications where illegal entry occurred within the past ten years. The new guidance extends this restriction indefinitely, effectively banning affected individuals from ever becoming British citizens.

Arrival via Dangerous Journeys

A further addition to the guidance specifies that individuals who arrived without valid entry clearance via a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

• A dangerous journey includes travel by small boat, hidden in a vehicle, or other covert methods.
• This does not apply to those arriving via commercial airlines as passengers.

This provision disproportionately affects refugees, as many have no safe and legal routes to reach the UK and must resort to such journeys to claim asylum.

Impact on Refugees and the Naturalisation Process

The naturalisation process in the UK is already costly and does not include a formal right of appeal in case of refusal. The guidance states that refusals will “normally” occur, allowing some room for discretion. However, this change will likely deter many eligible individuals from even attempting to apply.

Data suggests that 62% of Labour voters support refugees being able to naturalise regardless of their method of arrival. Yet, this policy change, which lacks broad political support, serves to further isolate and exclude refugees from full participation in British society.

Connection to the Illegal Migration Act 2023

The Home Office appears to be positioning this change as a replacement for the citizenship ban contained within the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That ban was widely criticised for explicitly targeting refugees, and the new guidance echoes those exclusions by penalising individuals who arrive via dangerous journeys.

Historically, some guidance has suggested that certain categories of individuals—such as victims of trafficking—could have their cases considered more leniently. However, the new changes make no such distinctions explicit, leaving substantial uncertainty for refugees who may have been forced to travel illegally.

Violation of the Refugee Convention

The new guidance appears to conflict with Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which protects refugees from penalties for illegal entry if they:

• Travelled directly from a country where they feared persecution.
• Presented themselves to the authorities without delay.
• Showed good cause for their illegal entry.

The previous versions of the guidance at least acknowledged the need to assess asylum claims on a case-by-case basis with reference to Article 31. The omission of these considerations in the latest amendments suggests a significant departure from international legal norms.

Implications of the New Guidance and Legal Considerations

These changes introduce significant restrictions on naturalisation, affecting individuals who may have been granted leave to remain rather than refugee status. The guidance does not distinguish between different circumstances of illegal entry, which may impact a broad range of applicants seeking British citizenship.

Conclusion

The updated Good Character guidance introduces new restrictions on naturalisation, affecting individuals who may have entered the UK illegally. Given the high application fees and lack of an appeal process, these changes could significantly impact those seeking British citizenship.

GSC Solicitors LLP provides expert legal advice on UK immigration and naturalisation. While the new restrictions may limit naturalisation for certain individuals, our team can assess individual circumstances to explore possible legal avenues. We can advise on alternative immigration routes, eligibility for discretion under the guidance, and potential challenges to refusals where applicable. Contact us for further guidance on how these changes may affect your case.

For further legal advice on UK immigration and naturalisation, contact GSC Solicitors LLP.

The UK government’s Autumn Budget 2024 introduced significant tax reforms impacting non-domiciled residents (non-doms). While these changes aim to enhance tax transparency and accountability, the Labour Party’s latest announcement reflects an attempt to soften some aspects of the tax changes for non-doms, signaling a commitment to maintaining the UK’s appeal for high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs).

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently announced amendments to the finance bill to adjust the planned changes to the non-dom tax regime. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Reeves emphasised Labour’s intent to listen to the concerns raised by the non-dom community while prioritising economic growth and investment in the UK.

Key Tax Changes for Non-Doms

Foreign Income and Gains (FIG) Taxation

Non-doms will face tighter taxation on their worldwide income and gains. Under the new rules, foreign income and gains will be taxed more aggressively, regardless of whether funds are remitted to the UK. This represents a departure from the previous remittance basis, increasing the tax burden for individuals with substantial international assets.

Temporary Repatriation Relief

The government’s Temporary Repatriation Facility, first announced by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, will allow non-doms to bring overseas income into the UK at a reduced tax rate of 12-15% for a transitional period. Initially set to last two years, Reeves extended this facility to three years starting in April 2025. However, recent amendments tweak the rules to include proceeds from a broader range of investments, making the facility more accessible and attractive for non-doms.

Tightened Reporting Requirements

Enhanced reporting obligations will require greater transparency in the declaration of offshore income, trusts, and asset holdings. Compliance standards will become more rigorous as HMRC increases scrutiny of cross-border wealth structures to address tax avoidance.

Increased Oversight of Trusts

Non-doms who utilise offshore trusts for estate planning will face tighter regulations. Beneficiaries may see higher taxes on distributions or gains, significantly reducing the effectiveness of trusts as a tax planning tool.

Labour’s Approach: Balancing Reform and Growth

Labour’s amendments to the finance bill aim to address concerns about the new regime’s impact on investment and economic growth. Reeves’s announcement at Davos underscored the importance of creating a positive business environment. “We have been listening to the concerns raised by the non-dom community,” she said, emphasising the need for clarity and confidence in the UK’s tax system.

Impact on High-Net-Worth Individuals

The updated reforms present both challenges and opportunities for non-doms:

• Increased Tax Burden: Global income will be more heavily taxed, affecting those with significant offshore earnings or complex portfolios.
• Compliance Challenges: Stricter reporting standards increase administrative burdens.
• Strategic Reassessments: Many non-doms may reevaluate their residency status, wealth structures, and use of trusts to optimise their tax positions.

Labour’s recent changes, particularly the adjustments to the Temporary Repatriation Facility, aim to ease some of these challenges while encouraging non-doms to bring funds into the UK for investment and spending.

Will Non-Doms Stay in the UK?

While tighter regulations could push some non-doms to consider relocating to tax-friendly jurisdictions like Portugal or the UAE, Labour’s proactive approach seeks to prevent an exodus of wealthy individuals. The amendments signal a willingness to adapt policies to ensure the UK remains competitive on the global stage.

How GSC Solicitors Can Help Non-Doms

Navigating these tax changes requires expert advice. At GSC Solicitors LLP, our Private Client team specialises in guiding high-net-worth non-doms through complex tax reforms. Our services include:

• Reviewing Offshore Structures: Assessing the efficiency of trusts and investments.
• Repatriation Planning: Helping clients utilise the Temporary Repatriation Facility effectively.
• Estate and Tax Planning: Developing strategies to manage cross-border assets.
• Compliance Support: Ensuring adherence to new reporting and transparency requirements.

Final Thoughts

The UK’s Autumn Budget and Labour’s subsequent amendments mark a shift in how non-doms manage their wealth and residency in the UK. While the reforms increase tax liabilities and reporting obligations, proactive planning can mitigate these impacts.

For expert advice, contact GSC Solicitors LLP today. Our team, led by Saleem Sheikh and recognised by the Legal 500, offers bespoke services to safeguard your legacy and navigate the evolving tax landscape effectively.

As of 31 December 2024, the Home Office introduced significant changes to UK sponsorship rules, its guidance for employers sponsoring Skilled Workers and Temporary Workers. These updates focus on preventing employers from reclaiming specific costs associated with sponsorship from their sponsored employees, thereby reinforcing fair treatment of migrant workers and ensuring compliance with immigration laws.

 

Key Changes Employers Need to Note:

1. Prohibition on Recouping Certain Costs

Employers can no longer pass on the following expenses to their sponsored workers:

• Sponsorship licence application fees and related administrative charges incurred after 31 December 2024.
• Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) fees issued from 31 December 2024 onwards.
• Immigration Skills Charges tied to Skilled Worker or Senior or Specialist Worker sponsorship routes.

2. Potential Penalties for Non-Compliance

Failing to adhere to these changes could result in serious consequences, such as:

• Suspension or revocation of the sponsor licence.
• Operational disruptions caused by inability to sponsor workers.
• Reputational damage and potential financial losses.

Legality of Clawback Clauses:

While these new rules restrict employers from recouping specific sponsorship costs, they do not make all repayment clauses unlawful. Employers are still permitted to include enforceable clawback provisions in employment contracts for other benefits or payments, provided these comply with broader legal principles. For instance, in the case of Steel v Spencer Road LLP [2023] EWHC 2492 (Ch), the High Court upheld the legality of a clawback clause requiring repayment of a bonus upon the employee’s departure. This demonstrates that repayment clauses remain lawful if they are reasonable and do not constitute an unfair restraint of trade.

Steps Employers Should Take:

• Review Current Contracts: Evaluate existing employment contracts to ensure that any repayment clauses comply with the new rules and do not contravene Home Office guidance.

• Update Policies and Practices: Adjust internal processes and sponsorship policies to align with the updated requirements, particularly regarding cost recovery from sponsored employees.

• Seek Professional Advice: Consulting with legal experts can help employers navigate the regulatory changes and maintain compliance while protecting their interests.

 

By reviewing employment contracts and updating policies to reflect these changes, employers can mitigate legal risks, maintain their sponsorship status, and uphold fair employment practices. Taking proactive steps now will ensure smooth compliance with the Home Office’s updated guidance for 2025 and beyond.