Negligent advice unravels family and home

Problem

Our client had gone to a local broker to establish in the UK a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent company in South Korea. The broker never advised our client of the duty to prepare annual accounts or other ongoing obligations towards Companies House. When our client moved address, he was unaware of any requirement to notify, and did not receive notice of dissolution of the subsidiary company. He only became aware when several years later, he sought an application for settlement and was notified by the UKBA that the company he had established had long since been dissolved. His application for settlement would therefore fail under the Immigration Rules for this reason.

At this stage our client's case could easily have been rectified, provided that either the old company was reinstated, or a new subsidiary established.

A dispute between head office and our client led to an impasse, until such time as the UKBA lost patience and decided to refuse our client permission to stay.

Rectifying our client's position at this stage now became difficult, because on appeal, an Immigration Judge must look to the facts in existence at the date of decision, in deciding whether the decision is in accordance with the Rules. Delay by our client had rendered a simple solution, unachievable.

Strategy

We had an alternative ground, namely that the appellant and his family had resided in the United Kingdom for almost nine years, and there would be a great deal of difficulty for the UK born eight year old daughter to assimilate into the education system in South Korea. Current jurisprudence must have regard to the best interests of a child as a primary consideration. Our client had a second chance.

Meanwhile, our client's father in law was diagnosed with a fatal disease, leaving his wife with a dilemma. To remain in the United Kingdom would permit her to resolve her Immigration status, but prevent her from attending to her dying father. To return to South Korea to attend to her father, before the appeal, would mean that she had to abandon the appeal, and if her child left as well, her appeal was also abandoned.

They chose to leave and so abandoned their appeal. Our client's second chance disappeared with their departure. When they attempted to return to the United Kingdom two weeks later, they were removed.

It is only after the mother and daughter had been removed , and just two weeks before the Appeal hearing, that MAGNE & CO were appraised of the full facts. We prepared two bundles running to approximately 350 pages. This included the following:

1. Prepare a 17 page statement of our client detailing both his business activities, and the personal challenges faced by his wife;
2. Prepared a detailed statement from a member of his congregation to confirm his integration with the local community;
3. Obtained a statement from the head accountant in South Korea confirming the dispute which led to the delay in the resolution;
4. Provided one hundred and fifty pages of documents proving business activity;
5. Obtained a letter in support from a supplier;
6. Obtained letter in support from our client's daughter's school;
7. Following a video conference between our client's daughter and a Professor of Korean language at Oxford University, obtained a report on her assimilation in to the Korean schooling system;
8. Obtained a report on the daughter's Korean language ability from a Linguistic institute in Seoul;
9. Obtained a medical report in relation to our client's father in law;
10. Arranged for a new company to be established and completion of the procedure of the re establishment of the old.

Solution

Appeal allowed.