Esheria England and Wales Case Law
Sign in
England and Wales Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

England and Wales Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter England and Wales case law

Results update automatically as you type.

England and Wales decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Administrative law

Joyce Oji, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework

The appeal was dismissed because, at the time of the refusal of legal aid, there was no dispute between the appellant and the Director regarding a civil right, so Article 6 ECHR was not engaged. The refusal to make an exceptional case determination was therefore lawful. The Court further held, obiter, that rights under the Windrush Compensation Scheme are capable of being civil rights for Article 6 purposes if a genuine dispute arises, but that was not the case here.

Source excerpt

  • Legal aid
  • Article 6 echr
  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Judicial review
  • Civil rights
  • Exceptional case funding
Read case analysis
Administrative law [2026] EWCA Civ 11

Oji, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework

Oji, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework [2026] EWCA Civ 11 (16 January 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that Article 6 was not engaged when legal aid was refused for a Windrush Compensation Scheme application, because no dispute yet existed.

  • Article 6 echr
  • Exceptional case funding
  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Civil rights
  • Judicial review
  • Article-6-echr
Read case analysis
Administrative law

Raymond Alfred Lee, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Defendant failed to ask herself the correct questions regarding the Claimant’s eligibility for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, specifically by not properly considering the application of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Immigration Rules to the Claimant’s circumstances in 1999. This constituted a public law error and ground 2 of the claim succeeded.

Source excerpt

  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Immigration rules
  • Indefinite leave to remain
  • Judicial review
  • Public law error
  • Tameside duty
Read case analysis
Administrative law [2025] EWHC 519 (Admin)

Lee, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Lee, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 519 (Admin) (07 March 2025)

Judicial review of a Windrush Compensation Scheme refusal succeeded because the Home Office asked the wrong legal question about returning resident status.

  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Judicial review
  • Immigration status
  • Public law error
  • Interpretation of ex gratia schemes
  • Windrush-compensation-scheme
Read case analysis
Administrative law

Joyce Oji, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework

Neither Article 6 nor Article 8 ECHR is engaged by the Windrush Compensation Scheme process. The scheme does not create civil rights for the purposes of Article 6, nor does the refusal or grant of compensation have a sufficiently significant impact on the essence of the claimant's private or family life to engage Article 8. Consequently, there was no obligation to consider the discretion under section 10(3)(b) LASPO. The refusal to grant ECF was lawful.

Source excerpt

  • Exceptional case funding
  • Article 6 echr
  • Article 8 echr
  • Windrush compensation scheme
Read case analysis
Immigration law

Milton Vivian Thompson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Claimant did not have lawful status for the purposes of the Windrush Compensation Scheme between 29 July 2004 and 17 April 2019, as his indefinite leave to remain had lapsed and he was not entitled to indefinite leave to enter. The refusal of leave to enter on 2 March 2005, although made without express consideration of Immigration Rule 19, would inevitably have resulted in refusal due to the Claimant’s criminal history and conduct. Exemption from deportation does not equate to settled status or lawful status under the Scheme. There was no material difference between the Claimant and othe…

Source excerpt

  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Lawful status
  • Deportation
  • Discrimination under article 14 echr
  • Judicial review
  • Immigration rules
Read case analysis
Administrative law

Surjit Kaur, R (on the application of) v Adjudicator's Office & Anor.

The decision to refuse compensation for loss of access to employment and benefits, and to award Level 3 (not Level 4) for 'Impact on Life', was lawful. The Scheme requires actual (written) applications for benefits; oral refusals do not suffice. The decision-makers gave adequate reasons, acted rationally, and were entitled to assess the evidence as they did. The exclusion of oral applications is not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR, as it is justified by the need for verifiability and protection of public funds.

Source excerpt

  • Judicial review
  • Ex gratia compensation
  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Discrimination (article 14 echr)
  • Evidentiary standards
  • Statutory interpretation
Read case analysis
Administrative law

VERNON VANRIEL, R (on the application of) v THE ADJUDICATOR’S OFFICE

By accepting the compensation as 'full and final settlement' of his claim, the Claimant is precluded from pursuing further judicial review or additional compensation under the Scheme. The settlement is binding, clear, and enforceable, and there is no public policy or legal basis to allow further challenge.

Source excerpt

  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Settlement agreements
  • Judicial review
  • Finality of settlements
  • Public policy
  • Discretionary compensation
Read case analysis
Administrative law [2024] EWHC 1281 (Admin)

Oji, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework

Oji, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework [2024] EWHC 1281 (Admin) (24 May 2024)

Judicial review of refusal of exceptional case funding for a Windrush Compensation Scheme claim dismissed; the court held Articles 6 and 8 were not engaged.

  • Exceptional case funding
  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Article 6 echr
  • Article 8 echr
  • Discretion under laspo s.10(3)(b)
  • Exceptional-case-funding
Read case analysis
Immigration law [2023] EWHC 2037 (Admin)

Thompson, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Thompson, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 2037 (Admin) (10 August 2023)

Judicial review of a Windrush Compensation Scheme refusal failed because the claimant lacked lawful status after his leave lapsed and was not entitled to leave to enter as of right.

  • Windrush compensation scheme
  • Lawful status
  • Judicial review
  • Immigration rules
  • Discrimination (article 14 echr)
  • Windrush-compensation-scheme
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

England and Wales decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.