Practice Summary
Philip Joined chambers in April 2010 from 36 Bedford Row. First called to the Bar in 1996 Philip practised crime for three years until leaving the Bar to join the Refugee Legal Centre in 1999. He moved to Sutovic & Hartigan Solicitors in 2000, taking on a broader range of immigration work. Philip returned to the Bar in January 2003 and ever since he has specialised in Asylum and Immigration law.
In the Administrative Court by way of Judicial Review, Philip has had recent success in diverse areas such as the appropriate interpretation of the test applied in refusals of fresh claims (AS (Sri Lanka)), unlawful detention following previous compliance with temporary admission (Shylolibavan) and ensuring Home Office compliance with the various EU Directives on asylum law, in particular the right to work provisions of the Reception Directive (ZO (Somalia) and Others).
Philip also acts regularly for Appellants before the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of both the First Tier and Upper Tribunals and thereafter on further appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. In this regard he has had notable success in ensuring Home Office compliance with policy statements (Shkembi v SSHD (CA) and IA (Mauritius) (AIT)) and in particular helping to settle the correct interpretation to the various maintenance provisions of the Immigration Rules (MK (Somalia) v ECO (CA) and Mahad and Others v ECO (SC).
Philip is an avid sports fan, previously enjoying skiing, playing regular golf, cricket and tennis and watching AFC Wimbledon, all severely hampered by relatively recent arrival of two young boys. He also enjoys playing the cello, film, and theatre.
Education: LLB, University College, London.
Funding Adjudicator for the LSC.
26 Jul 2011
16 Dec 2009
The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in AM (Ethiopia) [2008] EWCA Civ 1082 and the earlier decision of the then President of the AIT and held that those applying for Entry Clearance to join family members in the UK are entitled to rely on financial support offered by third parties.
17 Jun 2009
The Administrative Court considered various recent potentially conflicting Court of Appeal authorities concerning fresh claims for asylum and the certification of such claim and quashed SSHD’s decision, while in the end declining to rule on the potential conflict.
28 May 2009
On a second appeal to the Court of Appeal the Administrative Court’s narrow construction of Directive 2003/9/EC finally was overturned with the Court of Appeal agreeing a broader interpretation that this ‘Reception directive’ concerning the basic rights to be accorded to asylum seekers while their claims are being considered, also applied to those making subsequent applications for asylum, their initial claims having already been rejected.
15 May 2009
The Court upheld the SSHD’s decision to refuse a fresh claim for asylum but held that the decision to detain the Claimant had been unlawful.
27 Apr 2009
Current Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Country Guidance determination addressing risk on return to Burma.
01 Jan 2008
Though simply a refusal of Permission to apply for Judicial Review which failed due to causation issues, this case is significant for the Court accepting that the threshold in health removal cases arguably is reduced where the SSHD is in part responsible for the individual’s poor health, in this case through the Claimant’s long-term immigration detention. A further Judicial Review is currently stayed pending preparation of a joint psychiatric report.
01 Jan 2007
The Court of Appeal upheld Respondent’s Notice that SSHD had failed to give adequate reason for lodging her Appellant’s Notice out of time.
01 Jan 2006
Court of Appeal in overturning the Immigration Appeal Tribunal held that comments made by the then SSHD, Mr Blunkett, on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Start the Week’ concerning an amnesty for asylum-seeking families could be considered to be a ‘gloss’ on that policy whereby a family who didn’t fall within the precise terms of the policy might nonetheless succeed under Article 8.
27 Jan 2005
The Administrative Court held that the SSHD’s notification of the statutory basis for detention, without further reason being given, was insufficient either to satisfy the rule in Christie v Leachinsky or Article 5 ECHR and thus held the Claimant’s detention to have been unlawful.
01 Jan 2004
In overturning a Certificate curtailing a right of appeal under section 96 of the 2002 Act, the Administrative Court held that a number of IAT decisions which purported to follow a starred decision in Alihajdaraj, that Human Rights could not be considered on ‘variation of leave’ appeals, had been wrongly decided.
There are no inquiries available.
There are no publications available.
