Secured compensation of £5,000 for our paraplegic Claimant, who was subjected to the unlawful use of restraints by officers during a medical appointment.

Successful migrants’ rights matter concerning a refugee family at risk of homelessness. We were instructed on 7 January to prevent the eviction of a refugee family from their interim accommodation on 8th January. Following several PAP letters and negotiation, we managed to secure an extension to the interim accommodation sufficient to permit the family to lodge their section 204 appeal under HA 1996, and found the family housing solicitors whilst maintaining the threat of JR in the event of imminent homelessness. 

Successful migrants’ rights matter concerning a victim of trafficking and her disabled, 5 year old son. The family, reunited under the family reunion scheme, were threatened with eviction from their accommodation, originally due to take place on 9 January. We were instructed on 7 January and, following our submissions and pre-action letters, the Council conceded that it would engage its relief duties under s189b HA 1996 and house the family.

Public law matter concerning the homelessness of a vulnerable refugee family. The Claimant, due to welcome his family via family reunion from the DRC, was due to be evicted on the family’s arrival date due to his supported accommodation’s licence terms. The family were therefore threatened with homelessness upon arrival. We were instructed on Tuesday to assist – Inaam prepared a detailed PAP on the same day and contacted the out of hours team on Tuesday and Wednesday night. The family were granted s.188 accommodation upon arrival, with the Local Authority confirming that the family would continue to benefit from accommodation until a decision was made on their Part 7 Application.

Successful migrants’ rights matter concerning our former immigration client, persecuted on political grounds in the DRC and encountering a delay by the SSHD in decision making. Our pre-PAP, threatening to challenge the SSHD’s delay on several grounds by way of JR, resulted in a positive decision being provided on our client’s family reunion application, with his wife and three young children being able to reunite with him in the UK.

The client was subjected to restrictions on his communications, preventing him from telephoning his family members and speaking in his native language, Pashto. Following representations regarding the unfounded and irrational nature of the restrictions, which arose after the client’s mother enquired about his hospital appointment taking place via telephone, the restrictions were lifted.

Settled a claim against the Home Office for £40,000 arising from unlawful detention of 218 days. Inaam drafted the Claimant’s submissions against deportation, asserting his membership of PSG and these were not considered until after his period of detention thereby giving further rise to his claim. Inaam also drafted the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim which asserted his position at the material time of detention as an Adult at Risk and his meritorious claim for aggravated damages.

Client granted asylum and conclusive grounds decision from NRM following representations and research conducted with asset tracing experts at FIND.

SSHD lodged an application for PTA in the Court of Appeal, attempting to appeal on the matter of costs despite settling the claim, moving our pregnant asylum seeking client to more suitable accommodation post our PAP and proceedings, and being ordered by the Judge to bear our Claimant’s costs. Following our Grounds of Objection filed with the Court of Appeal, the SSHD was refused PTA on the papers, with no right of review nor appeal. 

Appellate work in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court.

The case turned on the proper interpretation of s54(4)(a) of PACE 1984, and whether objectively reasonable grounds to suspect clothing is going to be used for self-harm or harm of another are required before a custody officer can direct the forcible removal of such clothes from a detainee in a police station. Mr Carter was subjected to an irrevocably traumatic course of events – on the facts, he was taken to the ground, stripped naked and had his clothing, including a feather filled outer jacket, cut off him. The feathers impeded his breathing. Inaam conducted appellate work preparing appeals in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal with judgment handed down on 9 April 2025. The wider significance of the case and critical issues raised has led to our preparation of Mr Carter’s appeal to the Supreme Court (with the application for permission recently issued as UKSC/2025/0098), and adds to the firm’s ever-growing portfolio of significant CAPA work.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0098

The Home Office failed to properly exercise its discretion and delayed to provide Section 95 accommodation for the claimant, her toddlers and husband for five weeks. The Home Office then provided initial accommodation – one room in a hotel (for a family of 4), miles away from the claimant’s support system. The claimant felt her mental health plummet as her anxiety and insomnia worsened and her toddlers, accustomed to their home-cooked cultural foods, struggled with the unhealthy takeaways and fast food provided by the hotel and developed rashes. Inaam served an urgent pre-action letter, following which the family were moved back to London in a suitable property, where they will reside long-term until the claimant’s asylum claim is decided.

After serving the pre-action letter, Inaam’s refugee client and his seven children, two suffering from asthma, were moved out of the small, mouldy house they were in and into a larger property free from mould and more suited to their needs.

Inaam settled a JR for an asylum seeking client and her two month old baby resulting in suitable accommodation being procured for the claimant in her area of choice. The claimant, whilst pregnant, had developed a support network in her area, before the Home Office moved her to unsuitable hotel accommodation in London where she felt isolated and depressed. After issuing the JR, the Home Office, despite allocating accommodation on a ‘no choice basis’, accepted the claimant’s need to be accommodated long term in the area where she has her support network and midwife, and procured a flat for the claimant to stay in with her baby.

Asylum Support Tribunal Appeal – Successfully argued that an asylum claim cannot be deemed withdrawn without proper notice. SSHD withdrew their refusal to provide support under section 4 IA 1999 to Inaam’s client and her two toddlers, and granted support under section 95, deeming the applicant an asylum seeker on the basis that the applicant’s asylum claim was not properly withdrawn by SSHD.

Following Inaam’s representations submitted to the National Referral Mechanism, the applicant was issued a reasonable grounds decision on her trafficking case.

The NRM had failed to account for the applicant’s vulnerability and the fact she had been interviewed by a male officer after having been sex trafficked. Inaam served a PAP on the National Referral Mechanism, following which the applicant was issued a reasonable grounds decision on her trafficking case.

The Home Office attempted to move a vulnerable victim of torture to the Napier Barracks despite the High Court’s ruling in NB v SSHD [2023] ruling that survivors of torture are unsuitable for accommodation at Napier. Inaam served the pre-action letter and  supporting medical evidence, following which the Home Office agreed our client was unsuitable for the move.

Appeal and preparation of action against the LAA’s refusal to provide funding to a high-profile litigant with Counsel’s advice substantiating the high merit of the claim and satisfaction of the cost-benefit ratio.

Damages of £21,500 for 101 days of unlawful detention.

Damages of £10,000 for 47 days of unlawful detention.

Public law and discrimination matter with international elements, arising from the Secretary of State for Justice’s unlawful and irrational treatment of the Claimant, who was prevented from speaking in his native language with non-English speaking family members, and disallowed media in his native language, appropriate medical treatment and pastoral visits. Inaam drafted extensive pre-action correspondence, representations submitted to the President of the relevant IRMCT on behalf of Lead Counsel, and the Statement of Facts and Grounds.

Successful appeal in the FTT on Article 3 grounds of inhumane treatment and poor access to healthcare in Ghana for those suffering from schizophrenia.