Latest News



Adam Hundt and Gareth Mitchell promoted to partner

The promotions were annouced by Pierce Glynn's managing partner, Polly Glynn:

"On behalf of Stephen, Jo, Sue and myself, I am absolutely delighted to announce that Gareth and Adam have both agreed to become partners in the firm.

Gareth has worked here for over 8 years, joining a few months before qualification. Post qualification he quickly developed a fantastic reputation as a innovative and determined housing solicitor, and is widely recognised as one of the best housing solicitors in the UK. More recently he has been instrumental in developing the public law work at the firm, and has an increasing reputation as a superb public law solicitor.  

Adam came here 7 years ago as a trainee and worked with me (doing most of my work, as I seem to remember). His reputation and abilities flourished post qualification and he has developed a niche in dealing with healthcare for migrants, litigating the leading case up to the Court of Appeal, and regularly lecturing and advising charities and healthcare trusts. He is now recognised as the leading lawyer in healthcare cases. From October he will be mostly working in Bristol at our new office there.

As you can see, the partners are extremely lucky to have such brilliant lawyers working with us, and are even more fortunate that both have agreed to become partners."

Date added: 30.7.10



Sue Willman awarded Fulbright Scholarship

Pierce Glynn partner, Sue Willman, has been awarded a Fulbright scholarship to study international human rights law in the US. Notable Fulbright alumni include Nelson Mandela, Milton Friedman and Sylvia Plath.

Sue will undertake a master's degree at Georgetown University in Washington DC, who have also awarded her scholarship. Sue will be returning to Pierce Glynn in July 2011 to further develop our public law and human rights department with Gareth Mitchell and Louise Whitfield.

Date added: 30.7.10



£100,000 compensation for unlawful detention

Pierce Glynn has negotiated compensation of £100,000 for a client who was detained in an immigration removal centre for over 18 months despite being a British citizen.

Mr J was detained and threatened with deportation to Somalia, even though he had lived in the UK since his early childhood. Throughout his detention he protested that he was British, having been born to a British father, but he had no documents to prove it. Two immigration solicitors wrongly advised Mr J that there was nothing they could do to secure his release or prevent his deportation, before he instructed Adam Hundt of Pierce Glynn to investigate his case.

Two days after we sent a letter to the Home Office threatening court action, Mr J was unconditionally released, and the Home Office acknowledged that he should never have been detained as he was a British citizen.

Date added: 30.7.10


Client secures £30,000 compensation for inadequate support

Haringey Council have agreed to pay £30,000 compensation to one of our clients after failing to provide adequate support under the Children Act 1989.

Pierce Glynn brought the maladministration complaint after our client was was provided with only £52 per week to support her three children over a 5 year period whilst she waited for the Home Office to make a decision on her application for leave to remain in the UK. During this period our client was not allowed to work or apply for any other form of support.

Haringey Council provided only £52 per week even though they knew it was far less than the minimum amount the government says a family in similar circumstances needs to subsist. The complaint was resolved after Haringey's Complaints Panel found that the Council had failed to carry out any assessment of the minimum amount the family needed to subsist. The council has now accepted the Panel's recommendations.

Our client was represented by Sasha Rozansky.

Date added: 17.6.10



Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year Awards: Best Firm

We are delighted that Pierce Glynn has been shortlisted in the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year awards in the category of best firm. We are particularly pleased that the firm's nomination was supported by so many of our clients, and by the NGOs and voluntary sector organisations who have worked with us on our test cases over the last year.

The winner of the best firm category will be announced by Cherie Booth QC at an awards ceremony in Central London on 26th May 2010. For the press release announcing the full shortlist please click here.

Date added: 4.5.10


Algerian detainee released by High Court

On 12 April 2010, the High Court ordered that an Algerian man, Mr HY, who had been detained for over three and a half years should be released from detention on the basis that his continued detention was unlawful.

Pierce Glynn brought the proceedings on behalf of the 23 year old who had been detained since July 2006, but who could not be removed to Algeria as he had no identity documents and because the Algerian authorities were unable to document him. The judge, Mr Justice King, found that there was not only no reasonable prospect of removing him within a reasonable period, but that the Home Office could not even give a timetable for his proposed removal.

Although the judge found that our client’s continued detention was unlawful and ordered his release, the judge ruled against Mr HY's claim that his historic detention had also been unlawful. Therefore we have lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge this part of the ruling.

Our client is represented by Louise Whitfield, together with Hugh Southey QC of Tooks Chambers. A transcript of the judgment will be posted shortly.

Date added: 11.5.10


High Court success: medical assessment policy unlawful

Newham Council’s policy of outsourcing medical assessments to Dr Keen from NowMedical has been found by the High Court to be unlawful.

Our client was living in a one bedroom flat together with her elderly disabled mother and her four children. The severe overcrowding in the accommodation, and problems with dampness, led to health problems for her mother and the children. We helped our client to submit an application for rehousing to Newham, supported by medical evidence from a paediatrician and the family GP, and evidence from an Environmental Health Officer linking the damp at the property to condensation caused by the overcrowding. However, medical priority for the rehousing application was refused.

After carrying out further investigations, it became clear that the decision to refuse medical priority had been taken by an external contractor, Dr Keen of NowMedical, contrary to Newham’s published housing allocation policy. As result, we issued judicial review proceedings challenging this and although by the time of the final hearing our client had been re-housed, Mr Justice McCombe agreed that the case should proceed by way of test case because of the wider implications of Newham's unlawful practices. He went on to severely criticise Newham Council, saying that he had "the distinct impression that this authority was anxious for some considerable time to hide its position as far as possible", and granted a declaration that Newham were acting unlawfully.

Our client was represented by Matthew Hutchings, together with Polly Glynn from Pierce Glynn, who was commended by the Judge for her "tenancious" pursuit of the case. For a copy of the judgment, click here. To view Inside Housing magazine's article on this case, click here.

Date added: 6.5.10


Excessive service charge claim dropped

In response to a challenge brought by Pierce Glynn, Westminster Council has dropped a claim for service charges of nearly £2,000 per year from a homeless person placed in a temporary accommodation.

Our client, a homeless man with an income of only £64.30 per week, was placed in temporary accommodation leased by Westminster Council from a private landlord. Several weeks later, our client was told that in order to stay in the accommodation he would have to pay £35.03 per week for heating, hot water and meals. Our client was told that these charges would not be covered by housing benefit and that if he did not pay them he would evicted and he would become homeless once again – even though, if paid the charges, he would be left with less than £30 per week to live on.

Using arguments which are likely to assist many other homeless households, Stephen Pierce, a partner at Pierce Glynn, successfully challenged Westminster’s approach to temporary accommodation charges:

“The case concerned the not uncommon situation where a homeless person was placed in temporary accommodation leased by the local authority from a private landlord, told to move in on the basis of a referral letter, and claim housing benefit. No specified charge being made for heating hot water and meals, the local authority then made standard deductions from the housing benefit awarded on the basis of flat rates applicable according to the size of the accommodation.

However the local authority had no power to make such deductions since the accommodation was leased to the homeless person by the authority, so that the Housing Benefit was a rent rebate, to which the deductions could not apply. The local authority eventually conceded this, the charges were dropped, and the client was allowed to retain his temporary accommodation and get back onto his feet without the fear of further homelessness.”

Date added: 4.5.10


Unlawful detention claims for HIV+ detainees

Pierce Glynn has issued urgent judicial review proceedings on behalf of three immigration detainees who have been denied adequate medical treatment whilst detained by the Home Office, despite the fact that they are HIV+.

Whilst Home Office guidance says that someone with a serious medical condition should only be detained if there are “very exceptional circumstances”, the Home Office has failed to justify detention in each case on this basis. In addition, the standard of healthcare provided in immigration removal centres falls well below that which is essential for people with such a serious condition. For example, all three of our clients have had periods when their medication has run out and where they have not been taken to vital appointments with their treating consultant.

The cases are illustrative of wider concerns raised by many NGOs and treating doctors working in this field. A final hearing will be taking place in either the last week in June or the first week in July 2010 and details of the outcome will be posted here. The three detainees are being represented by Adam Hundt and Louise Whitfield of Pierce Glynn, together with Tim Buley of Landmark Chambers.

Date added: 8.4.10

High Court rules Iraqis' detention unlawful

Two Iraqis have won a judicial review against the Home Office in a test case which may benefit many others who cannot be deported or removed to Iraq.

Pierce Glynn represented Mr. Ibrahim and Mr. Omer who were detained for 14 months and 20 months respectively after they had completed sentences for low-level criminal offences. Delivering his judgment on 13th April, Mr. Justice Burnett relied on the traditional approach of Hardial Singh, finding that both Claimants should have been released after a period of around 12 months, when it became apparent that they could not be removed within a reasonable period. This finding relied on the fact that there were no plans to commence enforced removals to regions other than the northern Kurdish region, as demonstrated by the detention reviews in these cases.

However, the judge rejected the compelling arguments of barristers Mark Symes and Amanda Weston that the detention was unlawful because of the Home Office’s secret policy on foreign national prisoners. He also did not accept that Iraq was ‘an active war zone’, which would have meant that detention and enforced removal were an unlawful breach of a published policy. The main factors he took into consideration were that the conflict was localised, and that the policy was only concerned with countries for which removals to any region was impossible. However the judge has granted our clients permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on these important issues.

For a copy of the judgment click here. For further information about this case please contact Sue Willman.

Date added: 13.4.10


HMRC v Ruas, Court of Appeal

On 23rd March 2010 the Court of Appeal handed down an important judgment about the EU's social security co-ordination rules. For a copy of the judgment please click here. Richard Drabble QC and Tim Buley acted for the successful respondent, Mr Ruas, instructed by Gareth Mitchell from Pierce Glynn. For our press release please click here.

Date added: 23.3.10


Access to information for disabled patients

Pierce Glynn has successfully persuaded a group of hospitals to provide information on appointments to visually-impaired clients by email.

The hospital had previously insisted that appointments be notified by letter which meant that our client, and other visually-impaired people, had to get other people to read the letters to them, breaching their right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Following practical suggestions from our client and letters from us pointing out the hospital’s duties under the Disability Discrimination Act, the hospitals have agreed to set up a system whereby visually impaired clients receive appointment details by email, allowing them to use software to turn the messages into a format they can read.

Our client has reported this success back to campaigners at RNIB who have been working on this issue as part of their Losing Patients campaign. He recently emailed us to say: “that due to your actions in regards to Dudley Group of Hospitals, RNIB have recognised the importance of email for receiving health information to the extent that they have added it to their notification letter [by which patients can chose their preferred format of receiving information] which will be rolled out nationally. A member of the “losing patients” campaign team said he was inspired by the case and helped draft the form. He has also agreed to use the action you undertook as a case study within the campaign.... I would like to take this opportunity once again to thank you for all your help and for the difference it has made on my independence.”

Date added: 11.3.10


Cancer patient secures radiotherapy treatment

Our client, an elderly woman from Nigeria, was in the UK on a lengthy visit to her family who all live here when she fell ill with mouth cancer. She was admitted to Guy’s Hospital for surgery and although this was carried out, she was then presented with a bill for thousands of pounds for the treatment which she could not pay. Radiotherapy treatment which she needed was refused unless the bills were settled and a very substantial deposit paid, on the basis that she was an overseas visitor and therefore not entitled to free treatment.

We threatened a judicial review of the hospital trust’s decision to treat her as an overseas patient when she was in fact ordinarily resident in the UK having been here for six months and having applied for leave to remain: this entitled her to free treatment, but the Trust had not considered her situation properly. The Trust backed down and arranged for her radiotherapy to start immediately. They also agreed to repay the money her daughter had already paid and confirmed they would not charge her for any future treatment.

In the meantime, our client had been discharged from hospital and needed district nursing care to change her dressing every day, but her GP refused to arrange this on the basis that she was not entitled to this care because she was an overseas visitor. This was also incorrect, as she was already registered with her GP and there is no legal basis on which an overseas visitor could be refused this care.

On receipt of letters from us, both the Primary Care Trust and the GP agreed to arrange the district nursing care immediately. Our client’s daughter praised the work we had done on her mother’s behalf: “I would not hesitate to recommend your outstanding professionalism to anyone in need of a public lawyer. I feel privileged to have you as my Mum’s solicitor in helping her win her case. Thank you for putting a smile on my Mum’s face again.”

Date added: 11.3.10


Victoria baths closure

Pierce Glynn has been instructed by local residents to fight against the closure of Victoria Baths in Nottingham.

The Victoria Leisure Centre contains the oldest swimming pools in Nottingham, and was first opened in 1850. Although the Centre continues to be very popular with local residents, Nottingham City Council has announced that the baths are to be closed and then demolished. This decision has been met with a vociferous response from local residents and from the Save Victoria Baths campaign group. Several local residents have now instructed Pierce Glynn to challenge the closure decision. Louise Whitfield, who has particular experience of challenging local authority funding cuts, is advising the residents.


Chambers 2010 directory recommendations

Pierce Glynn has been identified as a leading firm in the Chambers 2010 directory.

The firm’s accolades include: “this excellent team is … recognised for its high-profile cases and fantastic reputation”; “interviewees identify its ‘willingness to go the extra mile’ as a key factor in its success.”; and, "the country's predominant community care firm.”

The directory also identifies four of our solicitors as leaders in their fields: “Managing partner Polly Glynn has a long track record in public and human rights law”; “ Sue Willman[’s] … expertise relating to asylum seekers is outstanding”; “ Stephen Pierce is ‘a dominant influence within the sector’”; and “ Gareth Mitchell’s grasp of detail always puts opponents at a disadvantage." For an online version of the directory click here.


Ombudsman’s report highlights injustice to Pierce Glynn client

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by Mr. M, a learning-disabled Lithuanian Roma man who was left unable to work and street homeless because the UKBA would not return his documents.

After Pierce Glynn complained to the Ombudsman, he received his passport and compensation. The Ombudsman found Mr. M had suffered a ‘considerable injustice’ and said that: ‘the Agency’s failure to return Mr M’s passport and their delay in responding to his complaint were likely to have caused him considerable worry, distress and inconvenience, particularly given his difficult personal circumstances (he has learning difficulties, long-term health problems, and language and literacy needs).’ Sue Willman represented Mr. M.

The case is highlighted in the new report ‘Fast and fair?’ A report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on the UK Border Agency, 2010. For a copy of the report click here.


Age assessment appeal

On 8th December 2009, Pierce Glynn filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court about local authority age assessments.

The case raises two issues of wider importance about local authority age assessments: when should age disputed children be given the benefit of doubt and when should local authorities be required to put adverse findings to age disputed children before making a final decision. The appeal seeks to overturn the High Court’s decision in R (AW (Afghanistan)) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 3090 (Admin). For a copy of that decision click here. Our client is represented by Zubier Yazdani, together with Michael Fordham QC and Shu Shin Luh.


Defending human rights in Columbia

In 2008 Pierce Glynn partner, Sue Willman, was part of delegation of UK human rights lawyers who visited Columbia to support the work of Columbian lawyers defending human rights. Human rights lawyers in Columbia work in extraordinarily dangerous conditions with over 400 lawyers having been assassinated since 1991 as they struggle to secure basic human rights such as access to water and the right to a fair hearing. For a recent article about the work of the delegation and plans for a return visit later this year click here.


Successful High Court human rights challenge

On 6th November 2009 the High Court ruled that a First-Tier Tribunal decision, that a homeless and destitute asylum seeker should not receive accommodation and support from the Home Office, was wrong.

Our client, NS, challenged the decision on the grounds that the withdrawal of her support while her applicaton for judicial review of the immigration decision was pending breached her human rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Justice Stadlen agreed that the Tribunal's decision was wrong, and it should take a different approach when considering cases like this. The judgment sets an important precedent for other cases of this kind.

NS was represented by Adam Hundt. A copy of the judgment is available here.


Tribunal allows Holocaust survivor appeal

For the past year Pierce Glynn have worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees in bringing a test case about the treatment of Holocaust reparations under the Pension Credit scheme.

Following the reunification of Germany, the German government agreed to fund a reparations programme for eastern European Jewish holocaust survivors. This scheme (the Article 2 scheme) is operated by Claims Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, who pay monthly reparations to several hundred holocaust survivors living in the UK. The payments are modest in amount, but hugely significant to a group of Jews who have waited over 40 years for recognition and redress for the horrific persecution they experienced.  

Pension Credit is paid to those over 60 and who have very low incomes. In 2007 the Department for Work and Pensions decided to reduce the Pension Credit payments made to holocaust survivors by an amount equal to any Article 2 payments; in effect, depriving this group of holocaust survivors of the benefit of the reparations they had waited over 40 years to receive.

On 12th November 2009 a Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) upheld an appeal in a test case brought by one such holocaust survivor against the Secretary of State's decision to pay a lower level of Pension Credit to him because he receives Article 2 payments. The Judge held that the Pension Credit legislation does not entitle the Secretary of State to take such payments into account when calculating Pension Credit entitlement.

A copy of the Tribunal decision is available here. The Secretary of State has agreed not to challenge this decision by way of an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

The appellant, Mr Danon, was represented by solicitor-advocate, Gareth Mitchell.

Legal 500 recommendations

Pierce Glynn's Public Law and Human Rights Department has been identified in the Legal 500 annual directory as one of the leading firms in the UK.

The team is recommended in both the public and administrative law category ('extremely knowledgeable') and the civil liberties and human rights category (Pierce Glynn takes on difficult and complex cases in under-explored areas of law, and is confident, courageous and fearless'). For an online version of the directory click here.


New book: Support for Asylum Seekers and other Migrants.

Initially aimed at the legal rights of destitute asylum seekers, the third edition of this essential guide, co-authored by Sue Willman of Pierce Glynn, also incorporates information about welfare provision for EU nationals. There is also a useful chapter on healthcare, contributed by Pierce Glynn solicitor Adam Hundt. For more information about the book please click here.


Planning Challenge Success

On 4th August 2009 Hastings Borough Council conceded High Court judicial review proceedings challenging the grant of planning permission for a £4 million gallery development on Rock-A-Nore Road in Hastings, East Sussex.

The claim, issued last month, was brought by a Rock-A-Nore resident, Jonathan Coe. Rock-A-Nore Road has been blighted by its use for high-speed, illegal road racing. During the planning consultation process Mr Coe and others made submissions about the need for Hastings Borough Council to place a condition on the gallery developer, the Jerwood Foundation, requiring it to install or contribute to the installation of traffic calming on Rock-A-Nore Road to eliminate the road racing problem. However Hastings Borough Council’s planning committee were not told of Mr Coe’s concerns and failed to consider the road racing problem at all when deciding to grant planning permission. Hastings Borough Council have belatedly conceded that that was unlawful and have agreed that the High Court should quash the planning permission. For further information about this case, or about our planning work more generally, please contact Gareth Mitchell or Polly Glynn.


Another Somali unlawful detention test case

The High Court has ordered the release of MM a young Somali with a wife and children who has lived legally in the UK since he was a child. He had been held as an immigration detainee for almost two years. Mr. Justice Davis said ‘enough is enough’; he had been unlawfully detained at least from the date when the Home Office decision-maker reconsidered the case and filed their defence to the court case. For a copy of the judgment click here.

Sue Willman who represented MM, said 'This decision is a warning bell that the Home Secretary should review the detention of any Somalis from Mogadishu as their detention is likely to be unlawful until the European Court of Human Rights has considered whether the UK is breaching human rights by sending people back there'.

Jerome Phelps, Director of London Detainee Support Group, commented ‘This case highlights the plight of indefinite detainees, who are trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare with no exit. We are supporting many detainees who cannot return and are detained for years, at public expense, because the Home Offices refuses to release them.’


Supreme Court refuses to consider appeal re squatters article 8 rights

Pierce Glynn represented a group of Luton residents in one of the first appeals to the new Supreme Court. Sadly, the court has refused to grant permission for their appeal against the Court of Appeal decision to go ahead. They now face eviction.

The residents had argued that if they were evicted, it would violate their right to family and home life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention and that they were entitled to a court hearing to consider their personal circumstances. They had moved into a derelict care home on the outskirts of Luton 16 years ago and have gradually improved it, but their housing co-op lease was ended, leaving them as trespassers. For the last two years, they have been fighting a legal battle against Bedfordshire County Council, (now Bedfordshire Central Council). The Minister for Communities and Local Government intervened in the case and supported the occupiers' argument that their case should be referred back to the County Court for full consideration of the facts and explained that the Minister was concerned to ensure that 'full and clear guidance was provided in these early cases in order to ensure a consistent application of the law in this area'. The Council of Europe's Council of Ministers is now investigating whether the UK is complying with the European Court of Human Rights judgments on article 8.

In his leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, LJ Waller decided that there was no right to have a review of the facts as known by the council at the date they decided to take possession, or at the date of the possession hearing, because the case involved trespassers, even though they had previously been licencees. He considered that the solution lay in the the right to suspend the order, so delaying the eviction. The difficulty with this is that is is understood since the case of McPhail that the court has no power to suspend such an order unless the landlord agrees. To read the judgment click here.

The residents are now applying to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that UK law does not give sufficiently to protect their right to respect for home and family life under article 8.