We are a modern and innovative boutique law firm with a flexible «can-do» approach. Our cross-domain specialisation allows for seamless solutions whether you are a business or an individual, allowing us to solve most complex problems, where several areas of law are involved.
Sterling Law was created with simplicity in mind. We believe that legal services can be provided without expensive overheads and wasteful activities. We rely on technology, modernisation and innovative approach to work to be more efficient and cost-effective for you. The result: high success rate at low prices, rankings in The Legal 500 and The Times.
We stand for your legal rights, whether you are a business, individual or a family looking for legal advice, we are here to help.
We are all about robust representation and doing everything possible (and sometimes not quite possible) to achieve the best result for our clients.
We are transparent. We offer free case evaluation, walk you through all the available options, and let you know in advance what success chances are. We will estimate how many hours it will take, and how much it is likely to cost you.
We make magic happen, whether a complex extradition case, appeal or employment dispute, we are here to help.
We value your time. After the consultation, we will let you know what the next steps are. We will request the documents we need, and only call you when necessary. We are proactive, will update you on your case as soon as we have any news so that you don’t need to call, meaning you can rest assured that no actions are needed from your side.
We haven’t forgotten about you, but we believe you’d rather spend time doing something that really matters than on the phone with a lawyer.
We are experienced litigators and negotiators, who know how to deal with defence lawyers, Home Office, and others.
We are famous for achieving the impossible, be that a what-seemed-to-be-hopeless immigration case or a process against a multi-national company.
Sometimes we have to use magic outside Hogwarts, but please don’t tell anyone.
Our client, a non-EEA national, initially obtained a residence card as the spouse of an EEA national. Our client subsequently divorced from his EEA national spouse and obtained a residence card under the Retained Rights route. The client then applied for permanent residence, which was refused and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by First-Tier Tribunal as the Judge wrongly thought the client needed to be a qualified person, not his EEA national spouse during the time their marriage lasted. Permission to appeal on this basis was granted.
Our immigration team achieved great success in representing a client in her appeal against the Home Office’s decision to refuse issuance of the Residence Card as an extended family member of an EEA national.
Our client, a Ukrainian national entered the UK as a Family Permit holder and was residing in the UK as an extended family member of an EEA national (her father-in-law was Portuguese). Our client lived with her husband and son, whose residence in the UK was also dependent on the same EEA national.
We have reviewed the EPC contract and provided a legal opinion on force majeure clauses (re Covid-19) and its implications.
Engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning (EPC) contracts are the most common form of contract used to undertake construction works by the private sector on large-scale and complex infrastructure projects. Under an EPC contract, a contractor is obliged to deliver a complete facility to a developer who needs only turn a key to start operating the facility, hence EPCC contracts are sometimes called turnkey construction contracts.
Our immigration team has achieved a successful decision in the asylum appeal of a Nepalese national and her spouse. According to the Immigration & Asylum Upper Tribunal, they should both be allowed to remain in the UK under the protection of Refugee law.
The appellant fell in love and married in the UK against the wishes of her family in Nepal, causing her to fear severe consequences upon return, including honour violence and persecution on the basis that she is a woman who married outside her caste and nationality.
In the recent case of Topadar v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1525 the Court of Appeal examined two questions:
At what point is an immigration application decided by the Home Office?
Is it procedurally unfair for the Home Office to refuse an application due to the applicant’s sponsor (i.e. their employer) failing to provide additional information (without the applicant ever being made aware of the request)?
The Court of Appeal decided: