At OTS Solicitors our team of highly experienced and recommended London Judicial Review Solicitors provide the best representation to clients seeking to challenge Government and other Public Authorities by Judicial Review application to the highest courts in the UK and abroad.

Our solicitors represent clients that include individuals, groups, NGO and Charities who on a will challenge the decisions of the courts, Home Office and immigration Detention Centres. We can represent our clients before the highest courts in England, Wales and the Europe including:

• The Court of Appeal
• The Supreme Court
• The European Court of Human Rights
• The Court of Justice of the European Union
• The High Court in The Royal courts of Justice
• The Upper Tribunal of The immigration and asylum Chamber
• The Special immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC)

 
When Can I Make an Application for Judicial Review?

If it seems that the Home Office, courts or the immigration Detention Centres have not acted correctly towards you, for example if they refuse your application with no right of appeal, or grant you the wrong leave to remain or maintaining you in detention without following the correct rules, you may be able to make an application to bring a Judicial Review against them.

Our Solicitors have been challenging the authorities poor decision making for several year, and our experience is made up of Judges, Barristers and Solicitors that are highly renowned for changing the law and seeing that their clients are persistently given the best legal services for Judicial Review.

Our Service To You:

Our team of London based Solicitors will be able to give you clear and concise advice in relation to the merits, strengths, weaknesses and the grounds of argument that will be used to succeed in your Judicial Review application. We will give clear advice and explain in detail every aspect of your Judicial Review application so that you are fully informed and your experience is comfortable in knowing exactly what steps are being taken in your case.

Our solicitors have extensive experience and we are widely respected for our expertise in the immigration Judicial Review field. Our Solicitors have attained the best Law Society Quality Mark in England and Wales, as the  Immigration and asylum Accreditation Scheme,  Supervisors and they are accredited Senior Level 2 Immigration Advisors with several years of experience in representing both legal aided and private paying clients in every type of immigration and asylum Judicial Review cases. The Judicial Review team at OTS Solicitors have the ability to deal with complex legal and factual material, and an aptitude for drafting persuasive legal arguments in house, which enables our solicitors to persistently make successful applications on behalf of our clients while keeping costs and fees low and affordable. 

Our Judicial Review Solicitors will carry out the following in every case:

1. Advise you on the legal power given to the Government or other Public Authority to make the decision, and assess the purpose of the power
   
   
2.  Advise you on any legal cases law that have tested the decision in the past and we will identify the strengths and weaknesses of using those cases to support your Judicial Review
   
   
3. If the Government Authority should have exercised discretion we will identify all the Government Policies and Guidance and ensure that we get to know the job of the decision maker better than they know it themselves
   
   
4. Advise you on the relevant evidence in your case and assist you to gather as much evidence as possible to disprove any points we expect the Government Authorities to use against you
   
   
5. We will always advise that a Freedom of Information request known as a Subject Access Request is made, unless there is persuasive argument not to or if you instruct us not to
   
   
6. We will always prepare a case that is difficult for the Government Authorities to resist or defend.
   
   
7. We will always act objectively and your best interest will always be our paramount consideration. If there is an alternative application such as a fresh claim with better evidence, then we will advise you of the appropriate course to take
   
   
8. We will advise you on Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review under the courts Procedure Rules
   
   
9. We will draft a detailed and persuasive pre-action protocol letter that comprehensively set out the issues in your case, the remedies / the correct decision that you are requesting the Government to make, and the reason why you are seeking a new decision.
   
   
10. We will seek the best Barrister to provide a specialist opinion in your case if necessary
    
    
11. We will draft Grounds for Judicial Review and in certain cases a Barrister will be instructed to provide Grounds for Permission addressing all the issues and the desired outcome clearly.
    
    
12. We will draft your Judicial Review application form and set out all detailed clearly and collate a bundle with relevant evidence in chronological and logical order, well presented and cross referenced to ensure that the Judge is given a detailed and comprehensive bundle to decide you case fairly
    
    
13. We will submit the Judicial Review application and appropriate fee in advance of the deadline, which is three months from the date of decision you seek to challenge
    
    
14. We will uphold our professional duty of candour to the Court and all parties  throughout the proceedings
    
    
15. We  will keep you fully informed at all times and be committed to provide the best representation of your case throughout the proceedings

Our Solicitors and Key Cases

At OTS Solicitors our impressive team of Judicial Review Solicitors have represented clients in landmark cases in particular immigration challenges that have had wide spread positive impact on immigration laws in the UK. Our team consists of former immigration Judges, Litigation Specialist Legal 500 Lawyers, and Recommended Legal 500 immigration Lawyers. Their work has assisted thousands of clients succeed in their Judicial Review Applications.

Key Cases

• LD (Kenya) V Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ

Acting for Kenyan national in a Court of Appeal case in relation to a Human Rights Application on both Article 3 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Appellant fears return on account of his imputed political opinion and a challenge has been mounted with a view to Ordering the Secretary of State to reconsider the Appellant’s Human Rights and asylum protection claim and to make a new decision in the best interest of the Appellant’s British children in the UK. The proceedings are on-going at the time of writing the Respondent Secretary of State seeks to settle the matter before it is heard in a full Appeal Hearing before 3 Court of Appeal Judges this summer.

• FA (Ghana – Failure to Dispatch Issued Indefinite Leave to Remain) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department

Acted for Ghanaian national in High Court Judicial Review damages claim to challenge Home Office’s delay in providing Indefinite Leave to Remain. The detrimental impact of this delay such as mental health and injury to feeling meant the one of the remedies we secured for the client was financial compensation from the Home Office. Our specialist Judicial Review Solicitors not only secured financial compensation paid by the Home Office to our client but settled terms that held the Home Office liable to pay our client’s legal costs in the case.

• ZA (Zambia – Unreasonable Refusal of Further leave to remain and Delay) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department

Acted for client in Judicial Review proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) in connection to the correct application of the new immigration Rule, and unlawful interference with client’s Article 3 [inhumane and degrading treatment] and 8 [respect for private and family life] rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). During the proceedings, through lengthy negotiations with the Treasury Solicitors, the SSHD conceded to reconsider client’s leave to remain application on both Article 3 and 8, and to waive any requisite fee for the application. The terms of consent settled by the parties also held the SSHD liable to pay the client’s reasonable costs. 

• FH (Egypt – Section 55 Best Interest of the Child and Illegal Entrant Parent) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department

Acted for client in Application to Home Office which lead to challenge at the High Court in a Judicial Review application against Secretary of State. Client resided in the UK with wife and three British children but he remained without any immigration status. An application to the Home Office was refused with no right of appeal. We were instructed to challenge by Judicial Reivew on grounds of Article 8 ECHR Private and Family life, and the Home Office’s failure to consider the Best Interest of the Child which was paramount in this case under Section 55. The Home Office were reluctant to allow the matter to go to a hearing in the High Court and instead settled the case, which meant our client succeeded in being granted a full right of appeal in the UK. We were instructed to represent the client in the Appeal which was successful and allowed by the First Tier Tribunal Judge and the client was awarded leave to remain costs of his legal proceedings paid by the Home Office.

• MAS & Others (Jamaica – Article 8 leave to remain Refused Without Right of Appeal) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department

Acted for client in a Judicial Review challenge against the SSHD in respect of the unlawful interference with the client’s Article 8 ECHR rights after issuing an immigration decision that did not give rise to a right of appeal. SSHD conceded to reconsider client’s FLR (O) application and to make an immigration decision that would give rise to a right of appeal if refused. 

• IO (Nigeria - Certification of asylum Claim and Unlawful Detention of Victim of Torture) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department

Acted for client in Judicial Review against the Secretary of State for the Home Department ('SSHD') in connection with the client’s asylum and human rights claim being certified as clearly unfounded and the SSHD’s decision to maintain his custody in a detention centre. Subsequent to permission being granted on the papers to proceed to the full hearing of the Judicial Review the SSHD conceded to withdraw her certification, which gave rise to an in-country right of appeal of the client’s asylum and human rights claim and to pay the client’s costs. The claim for compensatory damages for unlawful detention remains outstanding and negotiations as to the level of compensation are on going between the parties.

• AM (Syria – Dublin II Regulation Removal Challenge) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department

Acted for two separate Syrian nationals in emergency Judicial Review applications issued to stay unlawful removal to Bulgaria under Dublin II Regulations. The challenge was on the basis that if removed to Bulgaria, the client’s Article 3 ECHR is engaged due to Bulgaria’s history of refoulement to Turkey, violations of Article 31 Refugee Convention (a provision prohibiting the State from penalising an asylum seeker for illegal entry) and systemic failures throughout the asylum processes and procedures in Bulgaria.