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

kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

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 

kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk 

+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. 

Judgement-in-Default

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:

Email: Kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk

Mobile: 07484 614090

Tel. 020 7822 8599

“The law extends but does not limit freedom.” Sterling Law wins the lawsuit against the UK Home Office

Prior to being disappointed because of having lost the case, we would advise to attentively check the grounds which the Home Office based its decision on.

The situation that will be presented below shows that even the Home Office can show low consideration of the specific case. An individual has referred to Sterling Law to provide legal representation in the case due to the refusal of her application for an EEA Residence Card as confirmation of her right to reside in the UK with her husband of British citizenship.

Our Client is a woman (further Appellant) who got married to a British citizen in 2013 in Afghanistan. By the date of the hearing, they were expecting the birth of their first child. In 2016 her husband was offered a good job in the Netherlands, so the family decided to relocate there permanently. He was the first who moved to start his new job and a few months later, the Appellant joined him. She applied for EEA Residence Card in the Netherlands as a confirmation of her right to stay with her husband as a family member. She has issued a Residence Card in the Netherlands. Everything seemed to be in order: well-paid job, new rental apartment, studying a new language, life was filled with new colors. The family could see a lot of bright prospects for their future in the new country. They did not have intentions to leave the  Netherlands. However, life often has its own plans. Sometime later, they got news that the Applicant’s husband’s mother has seriously got sick in the UK. Taking into account the cultural specifics of the Appellant’s husband’s nationality (he was Afghan), the son was obligated to take care of his senior parents, especially if they were unwell. The family had no other choice but to go back to the UK to take care of the husband’s mother. She had limited capability of moving around the house and was suffering from instant pain in her joints. The Appellant provided significant help to her husband’s mother, such as feeding, cooking, helping to go to bed, etc. Upon arrival to the UK, the Applicant applied for a UK Residence Card as a confirmation of a right to reside in the UK with her British husband. However, the Home Office refused in issuing the Residence Card based on her situation assessment, saying that the Appellant could not meet the requirements of British immigration law.

We would like to provide the grounds of the Home Office refusal:

The Home Office concluded that the Applicant’s relocation to the Netherlands was not genuine, and was done in order to “circumvent domestic immigration laws”. In other words, the Home Office claimed that the Appellant decision to move to the Netherlands was something like a staging show with the only aim – to circumvent British law and to eventually receive UK Residence card. Secondly, the Home Office claimed that it was solely the Applicant’s initiative to come back to the UK, not her husband’s intention.

Moreover, it was concluded that the Applicant did not show that the center of her and her husband’s life was transferred to the Netherlands, practically no integration into new society has been conducted. And the accommodation they rented was just on a temporary base.

Sterling Law was appointed to represent the Appellant in this case, where we initially pointed out on the Home Office low consideration of the case and the numerous obvious evidence provided by the Applicant.

The first and furthermost fact is that throughout the entire Decision Letter the Home Office repeatedly referred to the Applicant has lived in “Ireland” instead of the Netherlands. This could not be considered just a minor error, but an example of how poorly the application was considered by the Home Office.

Based on the provided tenancy agreement, it was clearly seen that the Appellant’s family were planning to stay in the Netherlands not temporarily, but for a long period of time, if not permanently.

Numerous medical check-ups of the Appellant’s mother-in-law showed that she was indeed unwell and needed constant everyday care. Thus, the initiative of their relocation back to the UK was fully belonged to the Appellant’s husband, as it was his mother who needed help and physical support.

Later, the court concluded that relocation to another country could not be just a staging show, as it has been done so much by the family to move the center of their life to the Netherlands: find a new job, rent an apartment, study a new language, integrate into society. No doubts, the appeal was allowed by the Court. The Applicant was granted the UK Residence card.

Sterling Law was more than satisfied that the justice was served. We highly recommend to read through the Home Office decisions attentively, there can be some minor errors which do not influence the actual decision, but at the same there can be mistakes that completely change the outcome of the case, and even worse if this outcome is refusal or rejection of your application, like in the case described above.

This case reaffirms the statement of the prominent English philosopher John Locke, who said that “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

 

Appeal allowed for a further leave to remain based on private life in the UK and financially dependent child

Nollienne Alparaque and the team were recently successful in an appeal case in the First-tier Tribunal.

In this case, the client has appealed against the refusal for a further leave to remain in the UK, in which they heavily relied on their private life in the UK and their financially dependent child of 20 years of age. The applicant is financially self-sufficient and has owned her business for over ten years. The client’s son is a University student, who failed to obtain a student loan to pay his university fees, as he did not have a three year visa. Due to not being able to finance his own education, as he has no savings and assets, the client’s son seeks full financial support from his mother during his university years.

The judge has considered the fact that the applicant’s son has been living with his mother before going to university, and continues to do so throughout his university years, as he is wholly reliant on his mother and does not lead an independent life. Furthermore, it was found that there is a clear financial and emotional dependency enabling the applicant’s son to complete his education without the applicant’s support. The judge noted that if the client had to leave the UK, she would not be able to run her business, which would make it no longer possible to generate the income required to support and pay for her son’s university education.

The outcome of this appeal was successful, as the judge ruled that under those circumstances it would be a breach of the right to a family life and the client’s son would be deprived in the event of his mother’s removal from the UK to pursue his education and career.

Domestic violence – Indefinite Leave to Remain

A VICTORY FOR OUR CLIENT IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

Our lawyers won the appeal regarding indefinite leave to remain in the UK on the human right grounds.
Our client, a national of the Russian Federation, has lived and worked in the UK as a consultant for more than 3 years. Throughout her leave she held a spouse visa under the Immigration Rules (part 8, Appendix FM) as she was married to a British Citizen who is settled and present in the UK. The client had a complicated relationship with her British spouse (former), she was persuaded by former husband to apply for the spouse visa rather than a working visa that was also an option at that time. Our client’s spouse had regular mood swings, behaved with the client aggressively from time to time, forced her to leave the matrimonial house against her will and even forced her to make an act that was against her religion. Also, the client’s husband threatened to inform the Home Office that their marriage is over if she did not follow his instructions. After these events, our client had mental problems, was in continuous grief, sadness, stress, and regret; could not work properly. In addition, she suffered financial abuse since she was forced to transfer money into the spouse’s account, most notoriously, former husband did not give access to that funds.
Our client made an application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a victim of domestic violence that was initially refused by the Home Office, and she had been divorced 5 months before the final hearing.
In the Appeal case, our team provided the successful representation of domestic violence. The appeal was allowed and the right for indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence was granted.

Fully Qualified Practice Accountant

Fully Qualified Practice Accountant 24 hours (Part time) (£40,000-50,000 p.a. pro rata)

Job Description

Sterling Beanland is an accountancy practice based in the heart of London, Blackfriars. Due to the fast-growing team, the company requires a professional with outstanding leadership skills, great motivation and significant experience in the financial industry who will take over and lead the team to success.

Overview

This role would suit a qualified Chartered Accountant or Client Manager with 3 years Practice experience, who is able to work efficiently and support your clients, you will need excellent attention to detail and be able to respond quickly to queries and think on your feet. The role will mainly be dealing with statutory accounts, SA Returns, dealing with tax & HMRC, and other stakeholders. You will likely have a varied background working in an accounting firm with sole traders, partnerships, corporate accounts as well as personal tax, business tax and corporate tax. You will be personable in front of clients and able to build strong relationship with all kinds of clients. You will be fully qualified accountant ACCA/CTA/ATT /ACA etc. qualified.

 

Requirements:

Minimum of 3 years’ experience in practice
ACA, CTA, ATT or ACCA qualified
Strong communication skills
Excellent customer service skills
Excellent knowledge of Taxation
Knowledge Xero, Quickbooks, Taxfiler, Taxcalc

Position Remuneration

Salary of £40,000 – £50,000 p.a pro rata dependant on skills and experience
Ongoing training and career development
Pension scheme

Domestic Violence Retained Rights Appeal Allowed!

Another fantastic result from Oksana Demyanchuk and her client after another successful appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

The client, in this case, came to Sterling & Law Associates LLP after her marriage to an EEA national had broken down on grounds of domestic violence. Accordingly, an application for a residence card on the basis of the retained right of residence was made to the Home Office.

However, this application was refused as the marriage between our client and her EEA national Sponsor has not lasted for at least 3 years and the Home Office was not satisfied that our client had been a victim of domestic violence as there was little documentary or no independent evidence to corroborate our client’s claim to have been the victim of domestic violence.

Accordingly, Oksana lodged an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the Home Office, asserting that the client’s claim to be the victim of domestic violence was credible and therefore the Home Office decision was unlawful.

As is often the case in matters involving domestic violence, our client had little tangible evidence to demonstrate that they were a victim of such violence. Therefore, Oksana has placed particular attention and emphasis on the witness statements in the appeal.

The Judge, accepting that evidence in cases of domestic violence is not always available, found that the evidence of our client and witnesses was credible and gave a detailed picture that our client was, in fact, a victim of domestic violence. In doing so the Judge noted the following:

“I am not confined or restricted to independent documentary evidence such as that which the respondent may usually seek in cases involving or alleging domestic violence. The absence of police and medical reports are not necessarily indicators that the appellant did not suffer or was not the victim of domestic violence.

There are a whole host of reasons why those who suffer domestic violence, and especially women victims of male perpetrators, are reluctant to report to the police and the authorities that they are such victims. The reasons can be multifarious and complex and this is well documented in much research and studies in the area of domestic violence.

Appeal allowed for refusal of permanent residence as derived from being an EEA national exercising treaty rights in the UK for a continuous period of 5 years

Under Regulation 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, EEA nationals and family members of EEA nationals acquire the right of permanent residence after residing in the UK and exercising treaty rights for a period of at least 5 continuous years. Sterling law represented clients who were refused the right of permanent residence in the UK on this basis. The first appellant was an EEA national who was denied these rights along with their third-party national spouse who was refused the right of permanent residence as the spouse of an EEA national.

It was said that the reason for refusal was that the main appellant had not satisfied that they were exercising treaty rights for a continuous period of 5 years.

The bundle prepared by Sterling Law on behalf of the appellants showed that the reasons for refusal were unfounded. It was proved that the main appellant satisfies and had established treaty rights as an EEA worker in the UK. Evidence was provided by way of bank statements and pay slips for a period of just over 5 years. It was also found that the appellant was a job seeker as established by Hoekstra (nee Unger) case 76/63 (1964) ECR 177 which held that the EU law protected the ‘present worker’ but also ‘one who has left his job, and is capable of taking another’, as the main appellant was unemployed for two months within the 5 year period. It was also found that the second appellant (as the spouse of the main appellant) also exercised their treaty rights in the UK by proof of residence and employment for a period of 5 years and therefore is also entitled to permanent residence.

INVESTIGATING MISCONDUCT – How important is a proper investigation after an allegation of misconduct at work?

Kuldeep S. Clair, our senior Consultant Solicitor in Employment Law and Civil Disputes offers his views: 

In employment cases, it is generally crucial for there to be a fair investigation before an employee is dismissed for an allegation of misconduct. All relevant evidence must be heard. The employer must show that he has not acted unreasonably, or for underhand motives when dismissing. The reason and evidence should be clear, or at least as clear as it is possible to be, in the circumstances.

A warning should generally also only be given after an investigation which is proportionate to the seriousness of the wrongdoing which is being alleged.

A recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal demonstrates how this is a soft, and case-by-case principle, last week, in the case of Beattie v Condorrat War Memorial & Social Club. The claimant employee had been dismissed after the employer took into account a previous written warning which had been given without a full detailed investigation. The claimant challenged the earlier warning as being unfair on procedural grounds. Part of those grounds was justified in principle.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was basically unfair, but that her damages ought to be reduced to zero, on the basis that the result would have virtually certainly been the same, even if a proper investigation had been carried out.

This is what is known to employment lawyers as a ‘Polkey reduction’ to the compensation. In this case, the reduction was by 100%. (It is possible for a reduction to be of any percentage that the tribunal believes is just.)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal also upheld the earlier tribunal’s decision of awarding no damages. It said that it was not appropriate in this case for the tribunal to start questioning the earlier decision of the employer to issue the warning. The tribunal should only be concerned with the decision in front of it unless it was obviously completely perverse. But in this case, the employee had accepted at least some responsibility for the offense for which she had received a warning.

Citing the above case probably makes a client little wiser about what to do in an individual situation. But it highlights the need for advice, based on fundamental principles, being tailored to the individual situation every time.

 

Kuldeep S. Clair

Consultant Solicitor

Employment, Dispute Resolution, and Litigation

Sterling Lawyers Limited

(usual contact details inc mobile no.)

EU National’s Children and British Passports

Since the June 2016 referendum, when most British voted for Brexit, EU nationals became concerned about protecting the interests of their children and started to look for options of securing a UK passport. Let’s get into more details.

According to the general rule, children born in the UK automatically acquire a British passport. However, depending on the date the child was born different rules might apply.

For instance, those children who were born in the UK from October 2000 to April 2006 must prove that one of their parents held permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain/enter at the moment they were born. Only, in that case, they will be able to get a British passport. Permanent residence card or a letter from the UK Visas and Immigration are enough evidence to be provided to the British immigration authorities. However, most parts of EU nationals did not apply for such documentation, mostly because of the lack of immigration law knowledge, so their children losses the right to obtain a British passport automatically. Such a pity, but due to non-acquaintance the parents will have to apply on behalf of their children and register them as British citizens.

 

Those, who were born after April 2006 can obtain British passport if they can prove that their parents were exercising Treaty Rights by residing in the UK for at least of 5 years before the child was born. EU parents who have not completed 5 years residence in the UK prior to giving birth will withdraw their children’s right to become British at birth. Nevertheless, this category of children will have a right to register as British citizens following the terms and conditions of the British Nationality Act 1981. It should be noted, that such application is rather high-priced and would cost nearly GBP 1000.

We often get lots of questions from the clients in the cases, where one child (usually the eldest one) was born outside the UK and the youngest – in the UK. In that case, the younger child will have two options: either to be British at birth or to register through automatic entitlement, which was described in the previous paragraph.

Holding British citizenship, you can always come back to the UK to live, study or work. As parents are highly concerned about their children education, you can get a British education, which is undoubtedly one of the most efficient in the world. Sure enough, British passport is one of the most beneficial nowadays and can be counted as a great investment into your child’s life providing lots of advantages and opportunities for a better future.

The royal engagement indicates how difficult it is for British citizen to get married with the foreigner

Many of British citizens, who want or ever wanted to wed a foreigner felt some sympathy for Prince Harry and his American fiancée Meghan Markle last year. Since 2012 it has become more difficult for the British to marry foreigners. There are various reasons for that. The first and foremost, an expensive test has caused many obstacles for British willing to connect their lives with the foreigners. Prince Harry was not an exception, he had a long interview with the Home Office. Also, Ms. Markle will not be able to avoid the procedure that most other foreign brides have to go through.

 

We believe that the first step for her is to obtain a fiancée visa, which will unite the couple and let them live together after the wedding. After that, Ms. Markle will be eligible to submit an application for leave to remain. Thereafter, she might be able to apply for a permanent residence after having resided in the UK for 5 years. Of course, this all is possible, if she will successfully pass the British life test. Another difficulty that we should admit, that this is a rather costly procedure and not many people can afford it. Roughly, it would cost nearly GBP 7000 all in.

 

However, not only foreign fiancée has to suit endless requirements for being able to become the wife of a British citizen. British husband/wife will have to pass a minimum income threshold. According to the new rules, a British national who wants to connect life with the foreign partner must have an income of approximately GBP 18,6000 a year. Saying from the start, 40 % of British citizens would not be able to pass this threshold, as their income is much less. The most interesting fact is that Prince Harry may also fail to succeed in this test, as since leaving the army in 2015 he has not done much work, but charity. Even so, they were able to get married due to having over GBP 62,000 of savings – this is what saved the legal part of their marriage.

 

Let us provide some statistics – in 2010 almost 41 thousand fiancée visas were granted, but 6 years later when the new rules came in, only 29 thousand of the lucky got a visa. This is a significant difference when more than a quarter of applicants were rejected. Rules on getting fiancée visa are getting tightened, which leave no other choice for British nationals but to give up their dreams to wed a special citizen of nowhere.

Entrepreneur visa will no longer exist & changes to the investor route

Significant changes are happening to the Entrepreneur and Investor visa. Tier 1 Entrepreneur category will no longer exist from 29 March 2019, while Tier 1 will undergo significant changes.
 
The immigration minister says that the Entrepreneur route “has a long tail of low-quality projects which contribute little or nothing to the wider UK economy”.
 
In place of the entrepreneur comes the innovator:
 
The Innovator category is intended for more experienced business people. As well as an endorsement, applicants will need £50,000 to invest in their business from any legitimate source (reduced from £200,000 for most applicants in the current Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) category). The funding requirement will be waived for those switching from the Start-up category who have made significant achievements against their business plans. The category may lead to a settlement in the UK.
 
Again, the new Appendix W gives the details. The three main endorsement criteria are defined as follows:
 
Innovation: the applicant has a genuine, original business plan that meets new or existing market needs and/or creates a competitive advantage.
Viability: The applicant has the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and market awareness to successfully run the business.
 
Scalability: There is evidence of structured planning and of potential for job creation and growth into national and international markets.
 
Note that these are slightly different from the requirements for start-up visas, although the three headings are the same. The endorser must also be “reasonably satisfied that the applicant will spend the majority of their working time in the UK on developing business ventures”.
 
Unlike with the exceptional talent visa route, there is no set list of organisations that can endorse someone for an innovator visa. Endorsing bodies must be able to satisfy the criteria in Part W6.8, though.
 
Extension applications for Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants will remain open until 5 April 2023, and settlement applications until 5 April 2025.
Contact us should you have any questions.
Ruslan Kosarenko
Senior Partner
info@sterling-law.co.uk