Williams-v-SSHD: The Upper Tribunal allowed this substantive “Rule 322(5)/HMRC” Judicial Review, where it was alleged that the Applicant failed to pay tax on £165,355.00 on time. Zane Malik I appeared for the Applicant. Judgment is here: tinyurl.com/yd6jehjj
The High Court hand downs the judgment in Matthews v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2026 (Admin) and finds, after a fact-finding Judicial Review, that a person claiming to be a British Citizen born in the United Kingdom in 1976 was not, in fact, that person and was not a British Citizen. Zane Malik appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Revolutionary outcome in lead ETS appeals: SoS agrees fair procedure for challenging allegations of TOEIC fraud. Michael Biggs appeared for the appellant Mr.
The High Court gives its judgment in R (Teh) v Secretary for the Home Department  EWHC 1586 (Admin) on British Overseas Citizens who renounced their Malaysian citizenship in the mistaken belief that this would make them eligible for full British Citizenship and settlement in the United Kingdom, and admissibility of such individuals to Malaysia […]
The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal from Patal & Shah v SSHD  EWCA Civ 2028 (Re: difference between “compulsion” and “choice” in derivative claims for residence based upon the care for “direct relatives” of British citizens). Zane Malik represents the appellant. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/2028.html.
Upper Tribunal’s President, Mr Justice Lane, allows this important deprivation of nationality appeal, explains the jurisdiction and role the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, and concludes that Upper Tribunal’s Vice President’s decision in Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles)  UKUT 196 (IAC) (paragraph 5 of the Judicial Head Note) should not be followed. Zane Malik appeared for the successful Appellant.
The Court of Appeal gives authoritative guidance on all 8 versions of “evidential flexibility” policy, Rule 245AA and procedural fairness issues in Points Based System cases, and says that “the web of Rules and Guidance has become so tangled that even the spider has difficulty controlling it ”. Zane Malik appeared for the Home Secretary, who succeeded in these appeals. Shahadoth Karim and Darryl Balroop appeared for two of the Appellants.
The Court of Appeal deals with Article 3 medical health cases and says that it is “highly desirable that the Supreme Court should consider the impact of [the European Court of Human Rights judgment in] Paposhvili for the purpose of domestic law at an early stage”  and a stay on removal “is likely to justified” if “the test set out in Paposhvili at paragraph 183” is met .
The Court of Appeal gives its judgment in SM-v-SSHD  EWCA 32, dealing deals with the issue of costs arising from the claim stayed behind the Supreme Court litigation in TN (Afghanistan)-v-SSHD  UKSC 40, where the High Court ordered no costs. Zane Malik appeared for the Home Secretary and was successful, as the appeal was dismissed. He had appeared for the Claimant in TN (Afghanistan) litigation.