Surdonja [1998] All ER (D) 475 – test case before the High Court on whether the local authority is required to provide temporary accommodation that it is suitable. The court held that temporary accommodation must be suitable.

LB Ealing –v- Surdonja [2000] CCRTF 99/0558/2 – successful test case before the Court of Appeal on the proper construction of S. 198 of the Housing Act 1996 (local connection).

S & Others [2002] EWCA Civ 539– successful case before the Court of Appeal involving eight appellants concerning the risk on return for Croatian Serbs to Croatia. It is regarded as the forefather of the country guidance cases; Laws LJ held ‘While in our general law this notion of factual precedent is exotic, in the context of the IAT’s responsibilities it seems to us in principle to be benign and practical’).

Several country guidance cases: SK (Return - Ethnic Serb) Croatia CG *[2002] UKIAT 05613; DK (Return - Ethnic Serb - Upheld SK - Accommodation) Croatia CG [2003] UKIAT 00153; DM (Proportionality – Article 8) Croatia CG *[2004] UKIAT 00024.

Tomic v United Kingdom (Application No 17837/03) (unreported) 14 October 2003 (ECtHR) – Admissibility decision on whether the responsibilities of the Secretary of State were engaged where there was a fear of a risk of an article 3 breach.

Misanovic v SSHD [2008] EWHC 596 (Admin) Successful Article 6 challenge to proposed removal of Claimant whilst he had an outstanding civil claim against his employers for serious personal injury;

Hussein v SSHD (2007) (CO/5166/2006) Judicial Review in refusal of fresh asylum claim and claim for damages in respect of unlawful detention of a Sudanese Darfuri detained for 13 months despite the existence of a policy (unpublished at the time) instructing caseworkers to grant asylum to those of his ethnicity. Settled after permission was granted.

Juzbasa-Tanackovic v SSHD [2006] EWHC 1071 (Admin); Successful challenge to attempt by SSHD to remove wife whilst husband's asylum claim still pending;

Kokic and others v SSHD (2005) (CO/960/05); Conducted four of the eight test cases challenging exclusions from the SSHD's 'Family Amnesty' policy on the basis of minor criminal convictions. Settled after permission was granted with all members of all families granted ILR.

Karas -v- SSHD [2006] EWHC 747,A successful challenge before the High Court to what was then the Secretary of State’s practise to arrest, detain and set removal, without proper notice to the individual or their legal representatives.

R on the application of HM Coroner –v- The Secretary of State for Justice [2009] EWHC 1974 (Admin) – acted for interested party in a successful defense of the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice to refuse to grant a license to exhume.

Batista 2010] EWCA Civ 896;A successful challenge before the Court of Appeal concerning the Article 8 rights of foreign national prisoners.

AL (Angola) [2010] EWCA Civ 1611Case concerned the correct statutory construction of whether a decision to refuse to revoke a deportation order in Automatic Deportation proceedings, absent certification, amounts to an immigration decision attracting an in country right of appeal. The construction on behalf of the claimant was upheld by the Court. Lord Justice Jackson expressed his thanks to the solicitors and counsel on both sides for their considerable industry in putting together the necessary documentation and preparing their respective skeleton arguments for use at the hearing, which was set down with one days’ notice.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department –v- Arben Draga [2012] EWCA Civ 842 – whether detention pursuant to legislation that is subsequently proven to be ultra vires is unlawful. The High Court held it was unlawful ab initio and the Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed in part by the Court of Appeal. Permission to appeal that part has been refused by the Supreme Court and the case is pending before the European Court of Human Rights. Case also involved a complaint to the Commission of the European Communities concerning failure of a member state to comply with community law. The Commission declined to make a finding because the legal issue was resolved in domestic law in the appellant’s favour, in the interim.

GF [2012] EWHC 257 (Admin) – successful, interim challenge to the Secretary of States decision, made at the highest ministerial levels, to restrict the movements of a leading member of the armed opposition in Sudan. The Defendant sought to justify restriction inter aliaon the basis of ‘international relations,’ relations, which arguably engage HMG in conduct that violates it’s international legal obligations and EU Council Decision 2011/423/CFSP because the International Criminal Court has raised indictments, including genocide, against the President of Sudan and senior members of his Government for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The case is ongoing.

George –v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1362 – whether indefinite leave to remain is revived following a successful appeal against a deportation order. The Court of Appeal held that it is, but the Secretary of State’s appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court in March 2014.

Ketchakwe –v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/978/2014) successful interim injunction preventing the Secretary of State from removing a homosexual to Cameroon where she would face persecution and treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

L.O. –v- EULEX (2014-32) [11 November 2015] Complaint against EULEX before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX concerning the violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR by EULEX for the failure to investigate the abduction of the Complainant’s husband and for subjecting her to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Panel found that by it’s conduct, EULEX had violated Articles 2, 3, 8 and the 13 of the ECHR and made a number of recommendations.

Kontic –v- The Ministry of Defence Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2034 (QB). Test case litigation concerning a number of legal issues including whether acts and omissions of British forces in Kosovo were attributable to the United Kingdom or the United Nations and whether British forces exercised jurisdiction in the Kosovo at the time of the deaths and abductions of the Claimants’ family members. The preliminary issues were determined against the Claimants and an appeal before the Court of Appeal is pending.

D.W. (2014-11), E.V. (2014-12), F.U. (2014-13) G.T. (2014-14), Zlata Veselinovic (2014-15), H.S. (2014-16) and I.R. (2014-17) –v- EULEX [19 October 2016]. Complaints against EULEX before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX concerning the violation of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the ECHR by EULEX for the failure to investigate the deaths and abductions of the Complainant’s family members in violation of ECHR Article 2 and subjecting them to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of ECHR Article 3. The Panel held that by it’s conduct, EULEX had violated ECHR Articles 2, 3 and 13 and made a number of recommendations.

AB –v- the SSHD [2016] EWHC 2751 (Admin). Whether the SSHD was entitled to refuse to make a decision on an asylum claim whilst the Applicant was outside the United Kingdom and the SSHD refused to permit him to enter the United Kingdom. The Court found that the SSHD was so entitled and an appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal.

AB –v- The Entry Clearance Officer (OA/01355/2014). SSHD appeal before the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First Tier to allow the appeal of the Appellant against a decision of the Entry Clearance Office to refuse refugee family reunion pursuant to, inter alia, para. 320 (19) of the Immigration Rules. The Upper Tribunal 5.4 concluded that the correct legal test for exclusion under para. 320 (19) was not that of 1(f) of the Refugee Convention.

Tomanovic & Others -v- The European Union & Others [2019] EWHC 263 (QB). Whether a Court or Tribunal of a Member state has jurisdiction over human rights claims against the European Union that arise within the context of the Union’s Common Foreign Security Policy, which provisions are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). The Court concluded that the Court of the United Kingdom did not have jurisdiction over claims against the European Union; the CJEU did.

Tomanovic & Others -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2019] EWHC 3350 (QB). Whether the Foreign & Commonwealth Office exercised extra territorial jurisdiction in Kosovo by the secondment of an FCO employee to European Union Rule of Law Mission (“EULEX”) in Kosovo and whether the violation of fundamental human rights committed by EULEX, in the performance of an executive mandate, was attributable to the United Kingdom as a Member state of the European Union. The Court concluded that the United Kingdom did not exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and that attribution lay with the European Union.

Dahab Eid & Others -v- the Secretary of State for the Home Office (CO/2615/2020) Successful judicial review of the Secretary of State’s excessive delay in making a decision on applications for British citizenship.

Dahab Eid + Anr -v- the Secretary of State for the Home Department (CO/2690/2021) Successful judicial review of the Secretary of State’s excessive delay in issuing the invitation to Ceremony letter and excessive delay in determining an application for review of a refusal decision.

Belouanas -v- SSHD (CO/5849/2017) Successful civil claim against the Secretarty of State for the Home Department for unlawful curfew.