LEGAL COSTS – can you recover them from your opponent after winning a legal dispute?

Kuldeep S. Clair, our senior Consultant Solicitor in Dispute Resolution and Employment Law offers his views on this important topic: 

This question is understandably a common initial concern for many clients when they are deciding whether to issue court / tribunal proceedings, and  also when they are defending proceedings against them. 

The rules are complex and not automatic. They depend on the discretion of the Judge, and on things like the nature of the claim and the particular court or tribunal that you are in. Let’s go through a few guidelines but please remember to refer to the exceptions I have outlined later as well: 

  1. Employment tribunals – you will not recover your legal costs if you win, and will not have to pay the other side’s legal costs if you lose either. 
  • Civil money claims of less than £10,000 – as above, apart from relatively nominal fixed amounts totaling probably a few hundred pounds in most cases. (The other side will pay your court fees.)
  • Civil money claims above £10,000 – You will usually be able to recover a large proportion of legal costs which are reasonably incurred. What that means is that there is still a duty on your solicitors to act reasonably in the conduct of a claim so that whatever shortfall payable by you is as small as possible.   
  • Other civil claims, such as landlord/tenant, employment, commercial claims, company disputes – as per 3 above. The court is more likely to award you costs in a matter which is of higher value, since judges do not want to encourage people to clog up the courts with low-value disputes. But the value of the claim is only one factor, and of course, disputes can concern many other issues than just money. 

All of these principles can be overridden by the basic exception which is that a court or tribunal may award costs against a party if he/she has behaved in a manner which is regarded by the Judge as appalling or un-co-operative, and which has increased the legal costs incurred by the other side. It is important to appreciate that this does not mean just by losing the case. Clearly someone always has to lose. It means seriously inappropriate behavior, such as pursuing a utterly hopeless or dishonest case which was absolutely bound to fail. Or using litigation as a device to abuse or harass an opponent. 

If you are advised by your lawyer that all your legal costs will definitely be covered or recovered from the other side, you should remain skeptical. I always advise my clients honestly and fully about the merits of their case and also about the position on costs.  There are no guarantees concerning costs, other than through certain kinds of legal insurance. The problem with that kind of ‘after-the-event’ insurance is that it is only suitable for certain kinds of situations and cases, and it is also quite expensive. I can discuss those options with you in detail. 

Your best bet is to have a solicitor who has the experience and perspective to give you honest, forthright advice about the positive and negative aspects of your case, to prepare your case thoroughly, and fight your case vigorously once you have given clear instructions.  

If you have any queries about a dispute, please feel free to contact me initially without obligation. 

Kuldeep S. Clair 

Consultant Solicitor

Employment, Dispute Resolution and Litigation

+44 (0) 7484 61 4090

Follow by Email

A Victory for Our Client in the Employment Tribunal

Our client was employed as a bus driver and had 18 years of continuous employment. He had a clean record with no warnings or incidents. 

While driving in the rain, he had been involved in one unexplained low-speed accident which resulted in a collision with three parked cars and a fence. This caused about £40,000 of damage. He believed that the brakes on his vehicle had failed, although the employer had carried out tests and found nothing to be wrong.

There was video evidence of the bus journey, including in the driver’s cab. This showed that he was obviously awake and not distracted at the time that the accident occurred. 

The cause of the accident could only be complete unexplained negligence by our client, the driver, but he did not accept that. He disputed it from the very first time that the employer interviewed him. The company dismissed him within a couple of weeks, and his internal appeal was also unsuccessful.  

Attempts to negotiate a compromise were unsuccessful and this led to a hearing recently at Watford Employment Tribunal. One of the large ‘magic circle’ City law firms and their specialist employment barrister opposed us all along. 

Our employment solicitor, Kuldeep Clair, handled the case for us, and also advocated at the tribunal.

The decision of the tribunal came a month after a three-day hearing. We pointed out how the company had not considered theoretical alternative explanations for the accident, and how disclosure of the brake test reports had come extraordinarily late. The company’s culture of hostility to lawyers representing employees was also criticised; their HR appeals manager had been uncooperative and failed to look at the original decision afresh. 

The negative side was the following:

The tribunal felt that the employer can conclude the brakes were not faulty. This is in the light of all of the evidence, and lack of a positive alternative explanation from the client.

Decisions to dismiss are rarely black and white. They need to fall in a ‘band of reasonable responses’. A tribunal will always be looking at the overall reasonableness of the employer’s decision taking account of the full circumstances.   

However, we were successful in pointing out the procedural irregularities throughout. The tribunal decided that if the employer had adopted a proper procedure, there was a 30% possibility that the employer’s decision might have been in favour of our client. So, he received only a proportion of his full damages. However, that was enough to cover the trial costs. He fought the case as a matter of principle, and so he was pleased with the result. He had few ongoing losses as he found an alternative job three months after being dismissed in any event.

If you would like advice on any aspect of employment or business law, please contact us directly:

Kuldeep S. Clair

Consultant Solicitor 

+44 7 484 614 090

Debt and Money Claims in the UK

Debt and Money Claims: personal or on behalf of businesses, whether you are pursuing or defending

We are accustomed to recovering money or defending claims for monetary sums on behalf of our clients.

Unfortunately, the fact that it is not possible to recover hardly any legal costs in cases in ‘small claims’ cases  means that it may not be worth instructing us unless, practically, the dispute involves a sum of at least £6,000.

Having said that, sometimes our clients want to pursue their debtor as a matter of principle, even if the net sum recovered for them is a small proportion of the total sum that was due. That is entirely understandable.

Not all debt claims end in success. There is often a lot of frustration along the way. The lawyer’s job is very difficult. But often, we are very successful.

Sterling Law have concluded a settlement in a case where we had been acting for an architect who had been dealing with a company in the building trade. Several of our client company’s invoices totaling almost £9,000 over the early part of 2018 had remained unpaid for 5-6 months, despite repeated demands for payment. The debtor had just completely ‘blanked’ our client.

We have now received the final instalment in payment from the debtor company in this case, against whom we obtained judgment. This has been paid to our client, the creditor company. Of course our client’s director has expressed his delight at the outcome. 


The defendant, despite being a highly qualified professional, ignored our two ‘letters before action.’ He then ignored our issue of the court proceedings. We then obtained ‘judgement-in-default’ against his company. He then sprung into action when was threatened to face enforcement of the judgement. Various excuses were made, including blaming his accountants for not receiving the letters and court papers on time, even though they were sent to the correct registered office of the company. Ultimately, the director threatened that he would dissolve his company unless we accepted half the sum due, in full and final settlement.

We were not going to be fobbed off by this nonsense and advised our client accordingly. We had no reason to believe that the defendant company was on the verge of insolvency, and if it was so, we questioned why the director had half the sum sitting in his bank account, available to be paid immediately.

Ultimately, we obtained agreement for half the debt under the judgement to be paid immediately (which it duly was, this week), and for the second half next month.

Our client was delighted with the result; a combination of litigation and tough negotiation achieved a great result. If we had merely launched into enforcing the judgment, it would have taken much longer to obtain the money and costs (payable by our client and not all recoverable from the other side) would have been higher.

If you have a dispute upon which you need advice, please contact us. We can either represent you in court or just provide advice at an initial consultation.

Please contact Kuldeep S. Clair, Consultant Solicitor and Advocate, directly:


Mobile: 07484 614090

Tel. 020 7822 8599

A family finally gained their leave to remain under private and family life grounds

It is distressing to any asylum seeker to receive a letter from the court declaring that you have exhausted your appeal rights. After gathering numerous documents, attending countless court hearings and paying costly legal fees, you are left with little possibility of getting your legal status in the UK. When a person exhausts his appeal rights, it usually means that the Home Office will view you as having no right to stay in the UK and will subsequently force you to leave the country.

Our clients entered the UK in 2001. In 2003, the family’s asylum claim was refused by the Home Office and they sent a letter stating that they do not have any basis to remain in the UK anymore. However, the Home Office failed to enforce the removal of the family for 17 years!

The Facts and Home Office Decision

Our clients applied for an asylum claim in 2003 and an EEA residence card in 2016. All of their application was refused with no right of appeal. In one last attempt to gain legal status in the UK, the family applied for leave to remain under the basis of private and family life under Article 8 ECHR in 2019. However, the Home Office refused their application on the grounds that they failed to engage Article 8 as they “would not face very significant obstacles to their integration into their home country”.

The Home Office submitted that:

  1. The father is a professional builder and used to work in a construction firm in their home country. The Home Office finds that it will not be difficult for him to find a job in back there given his previous experience.
  2. The mother is an economist in her country of origin. Home Office stated that she would be able to re-integrate in the society taking regard that she previously worked there as a bookkeeper and a shop manager.
  3. The son is suffering from chronic depression since 2014. Home Office insisted that medical assistance would be available to him anyways in the home country.

Sterling Law and the Court’s Decision

Our lawyers in Sterling Law argued that the family would be met with very significant obstacles to their integration into their home country under Article 8 ECHR.

Sterling Law submitted that:

  1. The father will not find any work as he is already 58 years old. Despite his skills, employers in his home country usually hire builders who are under forty.
  2. It will be difficult for the mother to find employment. Notwithstanding her economic background, she has not been able to keep up to date with the various social and economic changes that have taken place back home since her arrival in the UK in 2001.
  3. There is a risk that the son’s mental health can suffer more as the attitude to mental health in his home country and depression is different from that in the UK. His home country does not view depression as an illness, unlike in the UK, where support from doctors and medical professionals are available.
  4. Our clients have no family ties back home. The 17-year period the family spent in the UK forged new relationships in the UK and broken down all connections in their country of origin.

The First-Tier Tribunal rejected all of the Home Office’s submission. The court accepted that our clients would face significant difficulties, both social and economic, attempting to reintegrate into society.

We are very happy for our clients. Their immigration status in the UK has been precarious for 17 years, but Sterling Law made it possible for them to settle legally in the UK.

If you are trying to seek asylum or bring a human rights claim, Sterling Law is a Legal 500 firm, acknowledged by its expertise in dealing with complex Immigration and Human rights cases.


Oksana Demyanchuk


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Book a consultation here.

Read more about our successful cases here.

Domestic worker successfully enforced her employment rights against her manipulative employer even after her work visa expired

The general rule is that it’s illegal to work for an employer after the employees working visa has expired. The employee will no longer be able to bring a breach of employment contract claim against his employer due to the defence of ‘illegality’ of contract.

The case of Okedina v Chikale [2019] EWCA Civ 1393 held that there are some circumstances in which an employment contract can still be enforceable despite breaching an immigration rule.

The Facts

The claimant, Ms Chikale, and the respondent, Mrs Okedina, are both Malawian nationals. The claimant was granted a 6-month visa to work as a nanny for the respondent. Little did the claimant know, her visa was granted based on false information given by the respondent. The respondent goes further by letting the claimant stay and work in the UK even after her visa expired. Few months after, the claimant is earning £200 per month. The respondent dismissed the claimant after she requested more money.


The respondent’s defence of illegality was denied by the court. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the claimant was innocent the whole time, and she was not aware that she has been working illegally.

In many cases, the balance of power in an employment relationship often tip in favour of the employer rather than the employee hence why vicious employers exploit workers by depriving them of their rights often becoming victims of trafficking.

If you think that your employer is depriving you of your employment rights, immediately contact our lawyers in Sterling Law, a Legal 500 firm based in London.

Contact us via:

+44 7 305 966 531

Book a consultation here.

Read about our successful cases here.

Home Office reconsider their refusal of our client’s ILR application

A freedom of information request shows in 2018 that the Upper Tribunal rejected 900 out of 1,235 referrals for further appeal made by the Home Office. It means 75% of the total asylum seekers and migrants who wants to stay in the UK are put to an immeasurable amount of stress and trauma from the lengthy and expensive court processes.

Our client, a Russian national, entered the UK as a student in 2006. She has been living in the UK for 13 years. Since then, she has been studying, received her PhD and made a positive contribution to the community by paying her tax contributions and by volunteering in various charity work.

In 2019, she applied herself for ILR (indefinite leave to remain) based on her 10-years long residence. However, Home Office refused her application on the grounds that for a brief period during her stay in the UK, she had broken her 10 years’ continuous lawful residence.

She then approached Sterling Law, and in particular Oksana Demyanchuk, to appeal the Home Office’s decision in the First-Tier Tribunal (IAC).

Two days prior to the hearing, the Home Office wrote the Tribunal and our client stating that they are withdrawing their decision against our client’s case with a view to granting our client.

They further stated in the letter that:

“…Upon reviewing the applicant’s bundle, the SOS’s decision for the appellant is no longer sustainable and the appellant’s case will need to be reconsidered with a view to grant

It is very rare for the Home Office to withdraw their decisions, however, due the efforts made by Oksana Demyanchuk and Michael Carter in preparing our client’s bundles, Home Office’s decided that the original decision was unsustainable and saw no other option than to withdraw it.

If you have an immigration case that you want to discuss, Sterling Law is a Legal 500 firm which specialises in Immigration and Human Rights cases. We are proud to have been part of countless success stories from our clients in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at

Oksana Demyanchuk


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Or book a consultation here.

Read more about our successful cases here.


So, mathematical equations are not protected by copyright, because they were created for public use. It would be unfair towards everyone and it will create a monopoly! Moreover, it will restrict the free-flow of information and can be used by only the owner. Every person should have an opportunity to use mathematical equations for personal or business purposes. The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used. The key point is that you can be inspired by the form of expression, but not an idea of the expression. Unfortunately, it is often becoming difficult to see the difference between the idea and expression. When the expressions are inseparable from the ideas, those expressions are not protected.

Thus, if you would like to create a math book, you can use mathematical equations that are all available for you. However, be careful with personal diagrams and illustrations because they are protected under copyright law. By adding an original idea, it can be protected under copyright law.

In Eastern Book Company & Ors v. D.B. Modak & Anr, the court set up the two condition:

  1. Sweat of Brow; and
  2. Modicum of Creativity.

Meeting these criteria, the work will be considered to be ‘original‘ and will be protectable under the copyright.

Please do not hesitate to contact us.

By Katsiaryna Pazniak

You can book an appointment here.


Marriage of convenience allegations withdrawn by the Home Office

We received the above letter today from the Home Office Presenting Officers Unit concerning our client’s appeal. The central issue was an allegation by the Home Office that our client was in a marriage of convenience. Our client’s visa was revoked and she was issued with removal directions, requiring to leave the United Kingdom immediately.
In the letter, the Home Office has confirmed that their own decision is not sustainable and they have no chance to succeed. This has happened because of the robust representation of Sterling Law.
Yet again this again confirms that even the Home Office makes mistakes and you should always fight for your rights. In our client’s matter, we will now be seeking a wasted costs order against the Home Office because we believe that their actions were both unlawful and unreasonable. If the wasted costs application is successful, our client will recover the legal costs they have had to incur as a result of the atrocious decision by the Home Office.
Sterling Law is a highly experienced firm that deals with various areas of law and was recently included in the Legal 500. Sterling Law aims at bringing every case to a successful end, regardless of the complexity and give hope to those who already lost it.
Our lawyers deal with challenging cases daily, our expertise and knowledge mean our clients are never alone in their matter. We defended our clients’ rights and hold our clients’ hand every step of the way.
We often make the impossible possible.


Jekaterina Trubina

Contact us on

+44 020 7822 8535

+44 7 305 966 531

Or book an appointment here.





Sterling Law is now a Legal 500 firm

We are proud to be included in the Legal 500 rating. Simply put, Legal 500 highlights the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice.

According to Legal 500:

Sterling Law advises on all types of UK visa and sponsor licence issues for a range of corporate and individual clients. The team is adept at handling PBS applications, which includes advice on sponsored migrants, highly skilled migrants, entrepreneurs and investors.

The team also advises on human rights-related cases at initial application and appeal levels and has experience in a variety of other cases including asylum, protection and family reunion cases. Ruslan Kosarenko is praised for his abilities as a ‘dynamic problem-solver’.


This team is unusually responsive and extremely well organised.

The team is dedicated, hardworking and brings a positive attitude towards even the most difficult case.

Ruslan Kosarenko takes a ‘can-do’ approach to cases and gets excellent results.


Advised on the humanitarian protection of a Filipino national who divorced her former partner from Phillipines and faced persecution and death threats her home country due to the bigamy case filed by her former husband.

Represented a Brazilian client and protected the best interests of her child in separation case.

Advised on successful Investor visa applications after an initial refusals.

Contact us to resolve your legal matter:

+44 020 7822 8535

+44 7 305 966 531

Or book an appointment with us here.

Read about our successful cases here.

Upper Tribunal held that prison sentence does not break integral links of an EEA national in the UK

In recent years, EEA nationals have been looking for a silver lining concerning the protections confined unto them by relevant EU Regulations. CJEU judgements, combined with domestic law, succeeded in muddying the waters in providing clear clarification to the rights of EEA nationals. This is particularly true for EEA nationals who have been seeking protection against expulsion by a Host Member state as a result of a previous prison sentence.

A recent decision in the Upper Tribunal provided a start in clarifying whether a person who served a sentence of imprisonment breaks his 10-year period of continuous residence in the UK under the Citizen Directive. Thus, excluding him from entitlement to enhanced protection against deportation.

The Facts

The Appellant left Poland and entered the UK in 2007. He had been residing in the UK for more than eleven years at the date of the decision to deport him on 5 July 2018. He has six convictions for various drink driving offences between 5 September 2011 and 18 May 2018. He received three custodial sentences. He also received a total of 280 days of imprisonment sentence but only spent actual time in prison for 123 days.

The question for the judge was whether the Appellant’s period of imprisonment (123 days) was sufficient to break his integrative links with the UK such that he was not entitled to “imperative grounds” enhanced protection under Regulation 27(4) Immigration (EEA) Regulation 2016.

First-tier Tribunal Decision 

The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal the deportation order made against him.

Unfortunately, the First Tribunal judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.

The judge mainly used the authority in, Warsame v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentWarsame held that periods of imprisonment are excluded when calculating the 10- year period of residence and that it also breaks the continuity of residence under Regulation 27(4).

In the Appellant’s case, he did not have ten years’ continuous residence between 2007 (when he first arrived in the UK) and 28 February 2016 (when he was first imprisoned). If he had established ten years’ continuous residence before his imprisonment, it would also be necessary for him to show that integrating links with the UK had not been broken by imprisonment.

Since the Appellant acquired rights of permanent residence in March 2015, he was given medium protection against expulsion under Regulation 27(3). Namely, the deportation order must be justified on serious grounds of public policy and public security.

Appellant’s appeal and Upper Tribunal Decision 

The Appellant appealed against the First-tier Tribunal decision on the grounds of error of law.

He argued that he is entitled to the highest level of protection against expulsion under Regulation 27(4)(a).

He argued that he does not need to establish ten years’ continuous residence before his imprisonment. He only needs to prove whether he had forged the necessary integrative links over the nine years prior to imprisonment and whether the periods of imprisonment (123 days of actual imprisonment) were sufficient to break the continuity of residence (over ten years) at the date of the relevant decision.

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.

The Upper Tribunal held that the correct authority to apply in this case is not Warsame but B v Land Baden-Wurttemberg (C-316/16) and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Vomero (C‑424/16). These are the Upper Tribunal’s findings:

  • It is an error of law for the First-tier Tribunal only to consider the totality of the sentences of imprisonment (280 days), instead of the actual time spent in the prison (123 days).
  • The case Baden-Wüttermberg and Vomero is clear to state that in deciding whether the Appellant is entitled to enhanced protection, there must be an overall assessment of the Appellant’s integration in the UK. Furthermore, time in imprisonment does not automatically break his integral links in the UK.
  • The Upper Tribunal conducted an overall assessment of the Applicant’s integration in the UK. They have taken into account the Appellant’s
  1. Use of his Treaty rights
  2. Period of residence in the UK
  3. The nature and seriousness of his offence
  4. Offending behaviour
  5. Circumstances in which the offence was committed
  6. Period of imprisonment
  7. Evidence that he may be developing some insight into the seriousness of his past conduct

Taken in to account the factors above, the Upper Tribunal is convinced that his period of imprisonment of 123 days taken together with the Appellant’s offending behaviour is not sufficient to break his integrative links with the UK such that it could not be said that he had not acquired ten years’ continuous residence in the UK.

The Upper Tribunal found that the Appellant is entitled to enhanced protection against expulsion and his criminal convictions are not sufficiently serious to meet the imperative grounds of public policy threshold.


This case is progress in clarifying EEA national’s rights under the Citizen Directive. It acts as a foundation to future cases which concerns the breakage of an EEA national’s integral links in the UK. Taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by an EEA national, a few months in prison is not enough to say that he does not deserve the right for enhanced protection confined under the Citizens’ Directive.

Are you in a similar situation? You can book a consultation with us here.

You can also contact us using the details below:

+44 020 7822 8535

+44 7 305 966 531

Read about our other successful cases here.

Sterling Law appealed a complex EEA deportation case

EEA nationals have special rights confined unto them under EU law. In particular, EEA

nationals have the right to freedom of movement. This means that all EEA nationals and

their respective family members are allowed to move and reside freely within the territory

of the Member State. However, these special rights can be stripped away by a Member

State, if they think that an EEA national pose a risk to public security and public policy.


Our client, a Polish national, entered the UK in 2006 in the hope of a better life. He worked

continuously, and in March 2015, our client acquired rights of permanent residence

and lived in the UK since. His parents and siblings have managed to settle in the UK. He also

met his partner in the UK, and a child was born in 2016. He is happily living in the UK until July 2018, where a deportation order was made against him.

The Secretary of State has sent a deportation order against him on serious grounds of public


He had a few driving offences when he was younger, which led him to spend time in prison.

He also had one offence for possession of an offensive weapon.

The Secretary of State concluded that our client represents a genuine, present and

sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and that there is a risk of

repetition of that conduct.

This conclusion was made despite the client’s good character in his probation officer’s

report and completing a rehabilitation program.

The Secretary of State did not regard the fact that our client has already lived in the UK for

12 years, and also that he will be homeless if he returns to Poland.

Our lawyers in Sterling Law, helped our client appeal his deportation order in the Upper

Tribunal. We argued that our client has the right to a higher status of protection against

deportation under an EU Directive. We successfully nullified the Secretary of State’s

deportation order. Furthermore, this case now acts as a future benchmark to other

deportation cases against EEA nationals with a previous prison sentence.

If you received a deportation order from the Secretary of State, please contact our lawyers

in Sterling Law, to immediately help you with your case.


Tel. +44 (0) 207 822 8535


Or book a consultation here.

Invasive Home Office visits led to an outrageous allegation and revocation of EEA Residence card

Home Office is set up to protect the UK against terrorist attacks, to provide public safety to its citizens, and to control immigration. Powers has been granted by the UK government to ensure that the Home Office can act accordingly to their purpose. However, what happens when those powers have completely disregarded a person’s well-being?

Our client, a Ukrainian national married a Lithuanian national in 2012. They were happily married until 2016 when they started having marital problems. Amid their troubled marriage, our client’s Residence card was revoked by the Home Office after an unsuccessful application for his Permanent Residence card.

Home Office decided to revoke our client’s Residence Card because they considered marriage was one of convenience. 

The basis of this decision came from when Immigration Officers visited the client’s marital home:

· When the Immigration Officers found that our client was having marital problems, they quickly insinuated that their marriage was not genuine.

· Immigration Officers outrageously alleged that our client is homosexual, solely based on his previous holiday photographs displayed in his room.

The decision was made after they repeatedly harassed our client’s non-English speaking mother, despite knowing her ongoing heart and mental issues. Moreover, the client was waiting for the appeal decision when he was unlawfully detained at the border whilst he was returning to the UK.

Our lawyers in Sterling law helped our client’s bail application and he was subsequently released. Notably, Nozima Rakhimjonova, representing Sterling law, has relentlessly argued at the Upper Tribunal that there was an error of law in our client’s case. She helped our client despite the lack of evidence to his case caused by him seeking legal assistance at a very late stage.

Nozima Rakhimjonova, successfully appealed the Home Office’s decision and proved that our client’s marriage was genuine. Our client was subsequently issued with a Permanent Residence card and now enjoys living in the UK without the risk of being sent back home by the Home Office.

Dealing with Immigration Officers in your immigration issue can be stressful. That is why it is essential to seek legal advice early on to ensure that your case is represented in its best merits. Our lawyers in Sterling Law can help you with any immigration issues, no matter how complex your case may be.

If you have a similar situation or had your residency card withdrawn by the Home Office, contact us as soon as possible for us to help you in your situation.

Tel. +44 (0) 207 822 8535


Or book a consultation here.

You can view more successful cases here.



The client allowed to stay in the UK despite his vast criminal record.


Our client, a Latvian national, moved to the UK with his siblings and parents several years ago. He was working as a self-employed person and established his own family in the UK (partner and 2 children). After an injury incident at work, our client started to suffer from severe pain and had to take prescribed medicine. As a result, he was unable to return to his work. Affected by medicine and unemployment, our client committed a number of different criminal offences and was even sentenced to 14-day imprisonment.


As a result of his criminal record, our client received a deportation order (under Regulation 23(6)(b) of the 2016 EEA Regulations) and was detained.


Sterling Law, represented by Nozima Rakhimjonova, helped the client to obtain release on bail and successfully overturned the deportation order at the Upper Tribunal. Despite poor representation on behalf of our client by his previous lawyer, our team managed to obtain a positive result after two years of fighting with the Home Office for the client’s right to stay in the UK.


The Upper Tribunal Judge allowed the appeal noting that

  • The appellant’s deportation to Latvia would be contrary to the best interests of his children (with whom he has strong parental tiers);
  • our client does NOT represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society;
  • removal of our client would be disproportionate.


If you or your family member has been detained or is facing deportation, contact us for professional legal advice:

+44 (0) 207 822 8535