![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Ismail & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 3056 (QB) (31 October 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/3056.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 3056 (QB) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MR AFHAM ISMAIL MRS BIBI ISMAIL |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED |
Defendant |
____________________
Adam Wolanski (instructed by Olswang LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 5 October 2012
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Eady :
"You be restrained from issuing claims or making applications in any court specified below concerning any matter involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to the proceedings in which this order is made without first obtaining the permission of Mr Justice Singh OR (if unavailable) Mrs Justice Sharp, Mr Justice Simon or Mr Justice Beatson."
Technically, it could be argued that the Claimants' application in these proceedings concerned "any matter involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to the proceedings in which this order is made". Yet Mr Wolanski, who represents the Defendant, has made it clear that he takes no point before me based on the ECRO. In any event, the Claimants are making attempts to have it overturned.
"ASYLUM SEEKERS: PAY FOR US TO HAVE A HOL
EXCLUSIVE by JOHN KAY
Chief Reporter
TWO asylum seekers are demanding a £100,000 payout – so they can take their two kids on holiday.
The married couple are suing the UK Border Agency for 'discrimination' and claim their family cannot live on £181 a week in benefits.
In a High Court writ, Afram and Bibi Ismail say they should get an extra £50 a week in handouts.
Arguing their children have been 'deprived of their rights', the writ states: 'Their parents cannot give them enough books, toys, food and holidays which every British child is entitled to.
'Mr Ismail tried to call the UKBA to get the money paid but was always harassed and mentally tortured. He was being victimised.'
Mr Ismail, who has TB, has lived in the UK for seven years after fleeing what is thought to be an African country. He says he is a human, 'not an animal'.
His wife has lived in Britain for four years and both the couple's children were born in this country.
She had surgery at a private hospital paid for by the NHS and tried to have her travel expenses reimbursed.
She also wanted to take a law degree but was told she did not have the right to study. The couple, who live in London, say their human rights have been breached.
The writ goes on: 'The Claimants are asking for damage caused to their family, career, and children's future'.
Last night the UKBA said: 'Those with no right to be here should return home. We reject this claim and will fight this case in the courts'."
i) On the claim form itself the Claimants were seeking in excess of £100,000.
ii) The claim was said to be for damages caused to the Claimants' "family, career and children's future", arising from the fact that the Claimants "have been deprived of their rights (their parents cannot give them enough books to read, toys to play, food to eat, holidays … ) which everybody's child is entitled to". Those passages were to be found in paragraph 28 of the particulars of claim. It would seem, therefore, that lack of holidays did form an element in the Claimants' complaint.
iii) Paragraph 4 of the particulars of claim referred to "discrimination" by the UKBA.
iv) Paragraph 6 referred to Mr Ismail as being harassed and mentally tortured.
v) Paragraph 4 referred to Mr Ismail having suffered from tuberculosis. Although it is true to say that the law now recognises a reasonable expectation of privacy, in certain circumstances, in relation to matters of health, the fact remains that this information was contained in the publicly available particulars of claim.
vi) Paragraph 5 referred to the Claimants as being "forced to live on an allowance of £181 per week".
vii) Paragraph 14 contended that the Claimants were entitled to an additional £50 funds per person, which had been refused. (There is some dispute as to whether it should be "per week" or "per person", but it makes little difference in the overall context.)
viii) Paragraph 18 mentioned Mrs Ismail's surgery at a private hospital paid for by the NHS. Again, in some circumstances there might have been a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the information was publicly available.
ix) Paragraph 18 mentioned an attempt by the Claimants to reclaim travel expenses to and from the private hospital.
x) Paragraph 19 records Mrs Ismail's wish to take a law degree and the fact that she had been told that she had no right to study in the United Kingdom.