Cases on No Recourse To Public Funds

Cases where the NRPF policy has been found unlawful (in full)


R (A&M) v SSHD (CO/4615/2018): the Defendant failed to conduct a public sector equality duty compliant review of the NRPF policy.

R (W, a Child by his Litigation Friend J) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 1299 (Admin): the NRPF policy at that time required applicants to demonstrate destitution before caseworkers would lift or not impose the condition. The divisional court held that the policy failed to make clear to caseworkers that they had to lift or not impose the condition where a person was at imminent risk of destitution and/or inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or its common law analogue. The Defendant amended the policy to refer to ‘imminent’ destitution following the case. You can read about the case in more detail here.

ST & Another v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1085 (Admin): the Divisional Court held that the NRPF policy at the time failed to require caseworkers to comply with the duty to have regard to the best interests of children in section 55 of the Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. You can read about this case in more detail here.

R (AB & Others) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1524 (Admin): despite ST, the Defendant had failed to make any or any sufficient amendments to the NRPF policy to require caseworkers to comply with her duty under section 55 of the 2009 Act.

R (HAA) v SSHD (CO/308/2023) & R (Ali) v SSHD (CO/3425/2022): the NRPF policy was declared unlawful for failing to reflect the Defendant’s broad discretion to lift or not impose the condition in cases of exceptional circumstances and/or disability, irrespective of whether an applicant is or may be destitute or imminently destitute.