Robert Hoxha & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

An immigration adviser must act within the scope of the authorisation granted by the statutory regulatory scheme. A level 3 OISC organisation may undertake judicial-review case management with authorised litigation counsel only if it also holds special authorisation for that work.

Legal representatives who rely on expert evidence must read and check the report. They must ensure that it accurately records matters within their knowledge, including how and when the expert obtained the information used. A representative is not merely a channel through which evidence is sent to the opposing party or tribunal.

Client distress, including fear of removal, does not justify professional action outside the representative's authority. Serious failures may properly be referred to the relevant regulator.

The Upper Tribunal exercised its Hamid jurisdiction to consider the conduct of Mr Salman Zafar and Zafar Law Chambers, an OISC-regulated immigration advice organisation.

The issues were whether the organisation had relied on potentially misleading psychological reports, had been responsible for generic and meritless judicial-review grounds, and had conducted judicial-review work without the necessary special OISC authorisation.

The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Zafar and two former clients. It concluded that it could not determine who had lodged the generic claims, but considered that issue required regulatory investigation. The central questions concerned the firm's professional duties in checking expert evidence and the limits of its authorisation to act in judicial-review proceedings.

1. The Tribunal referred Mr Zafar of Zafar Law Chambers to the OISC concerning the firm's handling of expert psychological evidence and its acting beyond the limits of its authorisation.

2. A legal representative who relies on an expert report has a professional duty to read and check it for accuracy. That includes ensuring that the report truthfully records the method, place and timing by which information was obtained, where those matters are within the representative's knowledge. The duty cannot simply be left to the expert.

3. Zafar Law Chambers failed in that duty in relation to reports prepared by Dr Latif. The report concerning PSP inaccurately represented the date and manner of the assessment. The Tribunal also found that the firm appeared to minimise its involvement in obtaining evidence through a methodology not disclosed on the reports' face.

4. The Tribunal did not determine the identity of those responsible for lodging generic 42-page judicial-review grounds. It lacked the investigative powers and skills required for that finding, but held that the matter warranted OISC investigation.

5. A level 3 OISC organisation requires special authorisation to conduct judicial-review case management with counsel authorised to conduct litigation. Actions such as lodging procedural forms, going on the record, seeking withdrawal, pursuing an injunction, and seeking reconsideration could amount to acting in judicial-review proceedings. The absence of drafted grounds did not remove that difficulty.

6. Clients' anxiety about removal did not excuse acting outside the statutory scheme. Practitioners must stand firm and act only within their authority.

not stated in the judgment.