British Lawyer

Приветствую, Пожалуйста: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/3c-and-3d-leave</noindex> По поводу консультации со мной "несколько месяцев назад" - это давно. Я в Tesco каждый раз плачу, когда еду там покупаю :-) Я надеюсь, Вам зарплату так же не раз в год платят :-))

- UK BA считает, что так нужно. - Достаточно написать хотя бы год Кстати, на прошлой неделе продляли визу жены клиентки по категории FLR(M). У нее нехватало буквально 5-и месяцев до 5-и лет. Смог добиться для нее бесплатного проддения, т.к. визу продлили на нужный срок и я добился того, чтобы клиентке вернули IHS и UK BA Fees. Довольно приличная сумма. Разумеется, как всегда я подавал заявление клиентки в нашем месном отделении UK BA, где я еженедельно подаю подобные заявление уже более 12 лет: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html</noindex>

Приветствую, Section 3C позволяет Вам находится в стране во время рассмотрения. Обратились бы ко мне - сьездил бы с Вами в наше местное отделение UK BA и Вы бы получили решение за 3 часа. Как крайний случай можете доплатить 400+ фунтов и тогда могут рассмотреть за 5 дней. Я так е могу написать письмо Вашему работодателю со ссылками на Правила. Я здесь, если нужна помощь.

Из недавних заявлений клиентов: • EEA(QP) – 1.5 месяца • EEA(FM) – 6 месяцев • EEA(PR) – EU – 3 месяца • EEA(PR) –Non-EU – 6 месяцев • DRF1 – 3 месяца • IAFT3 – 7 месяцев • EEA Family Permit - 15 дней • UK Spouse Visa (не ускоренно) - 12-20 недель • UK Spouse Visa (ускоренно) – 10-14 дней

Приветствую, Итак: Здравствуйте! Подскажите, пожалуйста, какую форму заполнять на ребенка 13 лет, который едет вместе с родителями? Нашли только одну форму Standard Visitor Visa - Обычнь да отдельно начали заполнять и на ребенка - правильно и появились вопросы: в графе Employment писать Unemployed или Student? Ребенок ходит в школу - Student Тут же возникает другой вопрос, сколько она тратит денег (What is the total amount of money you spend each month?), ноль не проходит - 0 чедустно походит, т.к. за него платят родители ? хотя понятно, что за все платят родители, значит указывать надо, правильно? - см. выше Также в анкете родителей они сумму указывают уже вместе с ребенком, которую они планируют потратить в ЮК (How much money are you planning to spend on your visit to the UK?) -Да + поймите рекомендацию выше

Приветствую, Итак: 1. Нужно ли нотариально заверять перевод решения суда, если я готова предоставить оригинал вместе с переводом? - Однозначно 2. Покупать ли сыну страховку, если да, то какую? - Формально не требуется 3. Как Вы думаете, документов достаточно? - Если только перечисленные - то да, мало. 4. Могу ли я подать оригинал своего EU паспорта вместо сертифицированной копии? - Требуется другое. Хотя может пройти.

Для гражданина EU - может быть любые 5 лет. На прошлой неделе получили PR для нескольких граждан EU - им UK BA засчитал дату получения PR с 2012 года. Сейчас готовлю их заявления на гражданство.

31 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Emails to UKVI outside the UK will be charged from the 1st June 2017 From 1 June, all customer enquiries will be handled by a new commercial partner Sitel UK. The new contract will see a number of changes for customers. These changes help the government reduce costs and ensure those who benefit directly from the UK immigration system make an appropriate contribution. The main changes for customers applying from outside the UK are: - all phone numbers and opening hours will change - the number of languages offered is reducing to 8 including English - customers who contact UK Visas and Immigration by email will be charged £5.48 You will need to pay using a credit or debit card for contacting us by email. The charge includes the first email enquiry you send and any follow-up emails to and from the contact centre relating to the same enquiry. The way you pay to use the telephone service will remain the same using a credit or debit card. If you do not have access to a credit or debit card, you may choose to use a trusted 3rd party such as an agent or sponsor. There are no changes to services if you are contacting us from inside the UK. ⦁ The case of Stoly Jankovic: what are the 10 and 20 year rules on long residence : <noindex>https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/ap...stojan-jankovic</noindex> The case of Stoly Jankovic recently attracted a lot of press attention and a great deal of sympathy. He had apparently been living and working in the UK since 1999, for a period of 26 years. How can it be right that he be detained for removal after all that time? Well, the rules on acquiring lawful status after long residence are very tightly drawn and it sounds as if he has fallen foul of them.

Приветствую, Итак: 1. Возвращают еще на момент подачи документов, я правильно понмаю? - Обычно - да 2. Я планирую заполнять анкету за родителей, там в конце так и указать что заполняла дочь и ФИО? - Да 3. Пожскажите, пожалуйста, где указывать что это joint application? так как документы некоторые одни на двоих. - В секции additional information И еще вопросик, право собстенности на мишину не нужно подавать? Где-то видела инфрмацию что этот док в списке документов которые не нужны. - Можете приложить, т.к. это так же доказывает "привязанность" к Родине. Заранее благодарю - Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

26 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre Увы, UK BA опять выигрывает в ситуации по престарелым родителям... ⦁ The Court of Appeal has dismissed the BritCits challenge to the adult dependent relative rule. The challenge to the general rule was dismissed on all three grounds: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/368.html In response to BritCits submissions on the treatment of care being considered adequate regardless of emotional ties and the extent to which care provided by the family would improve the elderly relative's quality of life, the Court indicated that evidence of psychological and emotional requirements are capable of being considered in the assessment: 59. Second, as is apparent from the Rules and the Guidance, the focus is on whether the care required by the ADR applicant can be "reasonably" provided and to "the required level" in their home country. As Mr Sheldon confirmed in his oral submissions, the provision of care in the home country must be reasonable both from the perspective of the provider and the perspective of the applicant, and the standard of such care must be what is required for that particular applicant. It is possible that insufficient attention has been paid in the past to these considerations, which focus on what care is both necessary and reasonable for the applicant to receive in their home country. Those considerations include issues as to the accessibility and geographical location of the provision of care and the standard of care. They are capable of embracing emotional and psychological requirements verified by expert medical evidence. What is reasonable is, of course, to be objectively assessed.

Если украинские и т.п. - то обычно оригиналы с заверенным переводом. Их возвращают (оригиналы).

Приветствую, Посмотрел "Ваш" сайт в Армении. За доп. оплтату в размере 672.22 Евро рассмотреть заявление на Settlement могут за 14 дней (т.е. в тетение 14 дней; у некоторых моих клиентов рассматривали за 7 дней 7 дней, было и такое). Вот ссылка: <noindex>https://uk.tlscontact.com/am/EVN/page.php?p..._value_services</noindex> Вчера консультировал гражданина Австралии. Он подал на визу мужа и ждет уже 12-ю неделю. Он пробовал ПОСЛЕ подачи завления "докупить" услугу ускоренного рассмотрения...Увы, в Австралии это было не возможно.

25 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ The long established case of DR Morocco is no longer relevant as the Tribunal can consider post-decision facts even in an entry clearance appeal ⦁ The form SET(O) can generally be used for those Discretionary Leave (DL) Settlement cases where the applicant was not previously refused asylum. The form FLR(DL) is generally to be used in both further leave and Settlement cases where the applicant was previously refused asylum

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Приветствую. Очень отразится (положительно) - после получения Permanent Residence non-EEA сможет сразу подавать на гражданство.

23 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Tier 2 (General) ILR v £35K earning shortly: salary increase shortly before the ILR date ? It is worth noting that the paragraph 245HF of the current Immigration Rules doe not say for how long the Tier 2 migrant should be paid at least £35,000 and the Paragraph 245HH of the Rules requires only the most recent pay slip. Therefore it seams there is no minimum length of period the applicant should have been getting the minimum basic salary of £35,000 before an application for ILR is made. The Rules implies that someone who is getting £25,000 per annum but 4 months before he makes an application for ILR his salary is increased to £35,000, he may then be considered to satisfy the minimum threshold of £35,000. This is backed up by the (subject to the specified evidence requirements in the Paragraph 245HH of the Rules) need for the employer to certify in writing that ‘that this salary will be paid for the foreseeable future’, so some scope for refusal under the general grounds if the HO does not believe the certification. All in all, one must understand that the Home Office can get suspicious on the steep rise in the salary, therefore the speed salary increase shortly before the ILR application is unadvised yet technically possible. ⦁ EEA applications when the EEA sponsor is refusing to provide documents (Retained Right of Residence (RRRP, Permanent Residence (PR)) So, is it all over for the non-EEA national when his/her EEA national sponsor is refusing to cooperate ? Not really. The only way to win for that non-EEA national is to make an application for RRR/PR (NB depending ob the circumstances, of course) and request the Secretary of State to obtain information from the HMRC, PWD etc in relation to the EEA national. The Secretary of State is not obliged to do so, and if the application fails, then during the appeal before the Tribunal seek directions from the Tribunal against the Secretary of State using the Rule 5 and the Rule 15 applications (The Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014) to obtain the information in connection with the EEA nation from other government departments (see paragraph 40 of Amos v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 55). ⦁ Is the TB test required for fiance(e) applications ? The TB test is required under the paragraph A39 of the Immigration Rules: "A39. Any person making an application for entry clearance to come to the UK for more than six months or as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner applying for leave to enter under Section EC-P:Entry clearance as a partner under Appendix FM, having been present in a country listed in Appendix T for more than six months immediately prior to their application, must present, at the time of application, a valid medical certificate issued by a medical practitioner approved by the Secretary of State for these purposes, as listed on the Gov.uk website, confirming that they have undergone screening for active pulmonary tuberculosis and that this tuberculosis is not present in the applicant.". ⦁ UK BA's random requests for the so-called Statement of Additional Grounds (RED0003) questionnaires It seems that the UK BA have started routinely sending out additional Statement of Additional Grounds (RED0003) questionnaires, following the submission of the application for Settlement etc, despite the applications being approved at a later stage. ⦁ UK Visas and Immigration guidance: Points-based system- sponsor compliance visits (19 May 2017): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...nsor-management</noindex> ⦁ What is the migrant's rights if the Settlement application (SET(DV)) on the basis of Domestic Violence is refused and the migrant has a new partner at the same time ? The DV application will not give rise to a right of appeal. The remedy is Admin Review. If the AR is not pursued, or refused, the person will be able to make another application (so long as they have not overstayed by more than 14 days). It is understood that the UK BA might curtail the person’s spouse leave on refusing the DV application, so that the person will become an overstayer on receiving the decision. One should note that the Section 3C leave will not kick in in these circumstances. They will need to make an application in line with para 39E (which is vert poorly drafted, by the way). It appears that the applicant will have 14 days to lodge an AR, and then 14 days after the AR has been refused to make another application. Recent case-law ⦁ Tribunal rules a Big Issue seller has no right of residence in EU law: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2017/155.html</noindex> The appellant was earning a steady £50 per week working a 40 hour week and the First-tier dismissed the appeal on the basis that the work was not “genuine and effective”. ⦁ UK law found to be more generous than EU law for jobseekers acquiring permanent residence: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2017/145.html</noindex> The case of GE v. SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 145 (ACC) sets out how the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (since replaced with the 2016 version), are in some areas, more generous than EU law itself by concluding that an initial right of residence or status as a job-seeker could count towards permanent residence for an EEA national. ⦁ No human rights issues to be raised in EEA appeals, confirms Court of Appeal: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2015/466.html</noindex> In September 2015, the Upper Tribunal decided the case of Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC). The decision states that if an appeal is brought in the First-Tier Tribunal against an EEA decision then the only relevant issues that can be raised during the appeal are those directly connected to that EEA decision. Human rights issues, the Upper Tribunal ruled, were not justifiable. ⦁ When can a tribunal be forced to pay the costs of judicially reviewing it? - <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/352.html</noindex> Apparently, not often. Only if the tribunal acts in an improper way. Incompetence or unlawfulness is not sufficient ⦁ Tribunal gives guidance on general principles in deprivation of citizenship appeals: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/196.html</noindex> Interesting case on deprivation of citizenship, not least as the Home Office spectacularly messed up by refusing on an unjustifiable grounds when there was a justifiable one staring them in the face. ⦁ Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 20 February 2017 – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger (Case C-89/17) (2 May 2017) : <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-125</noindex> Questions referred Do the principles contained in the decision in Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-370/90) [1992] operate so as to require a Member State to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the non-Union unmarried partner of a EU citizen who, having exercised his Treaty right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, returns with such partner to the Member State of his nationality? Alternatively, is there a requirement to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of such residence authorisation by virtue of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC1 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (“the Directive”)? Where a decision to refuse a residence authorisation is not founded on an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the Applicant and is not justified by adequate or sufficient reasons is such decision unlawful as being in breach of Article 3(2) of the Citizens Directive? Is a rule of national law which precludes an appeal to a court or tribunal against a decision of the executive refusing to issue a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member compatible with the Directive?

Приветствую, A2 CEFR equivalent. Сегодня с клиенткой подаем на продление визы жены британца в PEO Solihull с таким тестом. Клиентка сдавала тест в Trinity College. По идее, можете B1 сдать. Может пройти на получение ILR по принципу приемственности, но т.к. UK BA не предсткажуем, возможно, лучше идти через A2 и B1 протом, соответственно.

19 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on Zambrano children (16 May 2017) Last week the CJEU handed down a judgment on Zambrano children and whether their third country national parent (primary carers) can be deported. The case was on a reference from the Netherlands. It is rather long and quite complex so difficult to summarise in a few lines. The brief is as follows below. Everything depends on whether the EU citizen child is genuinely dependent on the third country national parent. If this is the case then the best interest of the child obligation kicks in and the parent has a right of residence (and to social benefits). Even if there is an EU citizen parent who might be able to care for the child, the key is still and always the dependency relationship of the child with the third country national parent. The CJEU provides some guidance on the factors to take into account to make the assessment (and yes, there is a light burden of proof on the parent to provide the evidence): In order to assess that risk, the Court instructs the authorities to consider: ⦁ which parent is the primary carer of the child; ⦁ is there in fact a relationship of dependency between the child and the third country national parent; ⦁ the right to respect for family life (Article 7 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights); ⦁ the best interests of the child (Article 24(2) EU Charter of Fundamental rights. The fact that the other, EU citizen parent is actually able and willing to assume the role of sole responsibility for the primary day-to-day care of the child is only a relevant factor. It is not a sufficient ground to conclude that the dependency relationship of the child and the third country national is not such as to compel the child to leave the EU if that parent was expelled. Specific circumstances must be taken into account: ⦁ the best interests of the child; ⦁ the child’s age; ⦁ the child’s physical and emotional development; ⦁ the extent of the child’s emotional ties with the Union citizen parent and the third country national parent; ⦁ the risks which separation from the third country national parent might entail for the child’s equilibrium (para 71).

17 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Family life succeeds in defeating s.94B ‘deport first, appeal later’ certification:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/338.html The judgment in OO (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 338 is one of a series of cases challenging the lawfulness of the certification regime under s.94B Nationality Immigration Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). This case is notable for its treatment of family life issues in respect of a (potentially) temporary absence from the United Kingdom whilst an appeal is ongoing, and a reminder that specific evidence documenting the best interests of any children involved in a deportation case will be crucially important. ⦁ Home Office unlawfully relies on Albania guidance for five years: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/351.html</noindex> The Home Office has relied on outdated guidance to determine asylum applications from Albanian nationals, the Court of Appeal has held. The judgment in LC (Albania) will have far-reaching effects for those people denied protection under bad law over a number of years. The judgment also reiterates the approach to be taken when considering the future behaviour of asylum applicants if they return to their home country. ⦁ Another successful unlawful detention claim: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/935.html</noindex> R (Ademiluyi) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 935 (Admin) concerns a successful claim for damages by an individual unlawfully detained under immigration powers. It is notable for its restatement of the importance of the third Hardial Singh principle, and as a further example of the Secretary of State’s ‘enduring casualness’ [23] when dealing with cases involving immigration detention. ⦁ Tribunal says foreign law is a question of fact normally determined by expert evidence: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/199.html</noindex> The Home Office proposed to remove the father of a family and three children to India and the wife and mother to Pakistan, thus separating the family. The family argued that they would be permanently separated because the immigration laws of India would not allow entry for the mother. The Home Office argued to the contrary, but the evidence on which the Home Office arguments was based was found to be, um, a bit flawed: "It follows that the cornerstone of the Secretary of State’s case crumbles and collapses. The main pillar upon which the Secretary of State has sought to justify the impugned removal decisions has been shown to be devoid of foundation. The expectation on which the Secretary of State’s decision was based is misconceived". The official headnote: "The content of any material foreign law is a question of fact normally determined on the basis of expert evidence". It does rather feel as if the burden of proof may have been reversed here on the foreign laws question, but a good result for the long suffering and unrepresented family nonetheless.

Важная фраза: "You may still be able to use your test with this application but only if it is at or above the appropriate level and was accepted as part of a successful previous partner or parent application."

Првиетствую, Да, как Вы видите, изменения происходят постоянно. Если в анкете не хватает места, просто сделайте похожу по формату таблицу в Word, заполните ее, подпишите ее и приложите с анкетой. Это моя стандартная практика по заявлениям клиентов.

15 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals pilots test virtual hearings this week The proposed first round of the Virtual Hearings research is on Weds 17 May at Surherland Labs, 52 Shorts Gardens, WC2H 9AN (Covent Garden tube). The aim is to hold 3-4 research sessions, in the afternoon/early evening (exact timings to be finalised). Each session will be run as a virtual meeting so that we IAC can start exploring the technology from the perspective of IAC participants. The aim is to have three participants in each research session, one of whom will be an IAC advocate (the others being judge and presenting officer). Recent Upper Tribunal decisions Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles) [2017] UKUT 00196 (IAC): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-196</noindex> (i) The Secretary of State has two separate powers of deprivation, exercisable on different grounds, as set out in sub-ss (2) and (3) of s 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. (ii) The power under s 40(2) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. (iii) The power under sub-s (3) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that registration or naturalisation was obtained by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. The deception referred to must have motivated the grant of (in the present case) citizenship, and therefore necessarily preceded that grant. (iv) The separation of sub-ss (2) and (3) makes it clear that obtaining naturalisation by one of the means of deception set out in sub-s (3) cannot of itself amount to a reason enabling the Secretary of State to be satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good for the purposes of sub-s (2); but, in an appropriate case, there would appear to be no reason why the Secretary of State should not be satisfied that the conditions under both subsections exist. (v) The restrictions on the rights of appeal imposed by s 84 of the 2002 Act do not apply to appeals against a s 40 decision: therefore, any proper ground of appeal is available to an applicant. The grounds of appeal are, however, limited by the formulation of s 40 and must be directed to whether the Secretary of State’s decision was in fact empowered by that section. There is no suggestion that a Tribunal has the power to consider whether it is satisfied of any of the matters set out in sub-ss (2) or (3); nor is there any suggestion that the Tribunal can itself exercise the Secretary of State’s discretion. CS and Others (Proof of Foreign Law) India [2017] UKUT 00199 (IAC): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-199</noindex> The content of any material foreign law is a question of fact normally determined on the basis of expert evidence. R (on the application of Al-Anizy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (undocumented Bidoons – Home Office policy) [2017] UKUT 00197 (IAC): https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-197 R (on the application of MMK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (consent orders – legal effect – enforcement) [2017] UKUT 00198 (IAC): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-198</noindex> (i) The commonly used forms of consent order do not expose either party to possible contempt action or other sanction. (ii) The remedy for non – compliance with a consent order will normally be the initiation of a fresh judicial review claim.

Приветствую, Отличные новости. По Вашему вопросу. Вы можете выезжать и приезжать в UK без мужа. Единственное, обычно на иммиграционном контроле спрашивают, где муж и могут мужу позвонить.

Пожалуйста, Рад был помочь.

12 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Non-working EEA family members of a working EEA national - ability for those non-working EEA family members to still apply for Permanent Residence in the UK If the main EEA applicant qualifies as a worker, then his/her EEA spouse/ civil partner (though not exercising treaty rights themselves) may qualify for PR “in line” with the main Applicant.Hence would not need CSI. This is applying Immigration (EEA) Regs 2006 para 15.(1) (. This is also supported by HO Guidance 21/4/17 on Free Movement Rights: direct family members of EEA nationals Permanent rights of residence scenario 4. Recent case-law ⦁ R (on the application of Zia and Hossan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Strike out – Reinstatement refused – Appeal) [2017] UKUT 00123 (IAC) (3 May2017): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-123</noindex> (i) A decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing to exercise its power to reinstate a judicial review claim which has been struck out may be the subject of an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. (ii) Such a decision, given its nature and consequences, is not to be equated with a mere case management decision. (iii) Every decision upon an application to reinstate must give effect to the overriding objective. (iv) Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provides the only mechanism for challenging a strike out order. Rule 43 has no application in this context.