Jennifer Lanigan

Jenny has considerable experience representing clients in the field of immigration, nationality and asylum law. She is regularly instructed at all levels up to and including the Court of Appeal. She is known for her meticulous preparation, excellent client care, and effective advocacy. She is adept at navigating complex cases, particularly in deportation proceedings.

Recent cases include:

–          KD v SSHD CA-2025-000792: An appeal concerning the correct approach to the Devaseelan guidance, as well as the rebuttable presumption under s.72 NIAA 2002 where the particularly serious crime of murder is involved. Jenny appeared at all stages, including in the Court of Appeal against a leading silk.

–          JR-2026-LON-000520: judicial review proceedings challenging the SSHD’s refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim to revoke a long-standing deportation order.

–          MK v SSHD UI-2025-004833: A successful UT error of law hearing regarding the FT’s erroneous application of AM (Zimbabwe) principles in the context of an Article 3 (medical) case. Jenny represented the appellant on a pro bono basis via Advocate.

–          HYW v SSHD UI/2025/001356: A successful UT error of law hearing concerning the correct application of HJ (Iran) principles in the context of a Chinese political activist.

–          TS v SSHD UI-2025-000092: Jenny successfully represented TS in both the FTT and UTT in a deportation appeal. The case concerned issues of trafficking, a blood feud and the nature of the relationship between TS and his child with a former partner. The appeal was allowed on the basis of Article 3 and Article 8. The Respondent is currently seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Jenny regularly acts in judicial review challenges and other actions against public bodies including those involving allegations of human rights violations.

Her experience includes:

–          AM v MoJ: providing advice and representation in a multi-track claim concerning allegations of battery, breaches of the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 in the prison context.

–          Providing advice and drafting in judicial review proceedings in the High Court in relation to a local authority’s actions relating to the claimant’s unborn child (AC-2025-LON-003868).

–          ER v MoJ: a claim for damages arising from a period of 112 days’ unlawful detention. Jenny provided advice and drafting in the claim, following which a favourable settlement was secured swiftly.

–          L v MoJ: a claim concerning numerous interferences over several years with the Claimant’s correspondence, including unlawful interferences with the Claimant’s legal correspondence (termed ‘rule 39’ correspondence under the Prison Rules). The Claimant secured significant damages in settlement at an unprecedented level when compared to existing case law. Jenny drafted the pleadings and provided advice throughout proceedings including in relation to settlement.

–          R (on the application of Lopes) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 805: The case involved linked applications for a writ of habeas corpus and permission to apply for judicial review. The case required novel analysis of the conflicting operation of the Home Office deportation policy following expiry of the appellant’s minimum tariff for murder (the Tariff Expired Removal Scheme) and extradition procedures in accordance with an outstanding international arrest warrant. Jenny provided drafting and representation, appearing as sole counsel in the High Court and Court of Appeal against the Secretary of State’s silk.

Jenny frequently provides advice and representation in cases involving allegations of discrimination, particularly under the Equality Act 2010.

Recent cases include:

–          Jallali v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor CA-2025-003041: appeal in the Court of Appeal (hearing to be listed) involving allegations of discrimination against part-time inspectors, led by Keith Bryant KC. Jenny also appeared as sole counsel in the EAT before the president Lord Fairley.

–          Acting for a large organisation in respect of a Section 23 agreement under the Equality Act 2006 proposed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, led by Aileen McColgan KC.

–          Newman v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police: 7-day employment trial led by Aileen McColgan KC involving allegations of discrimination and harassment in the context of gender-critical beliefs and the interplay with Article 10 freedom of speech.

Professional Discipline

Jenny provides advice and representation in disciplinary cases. She has particular experience in police matters, having advised and represented the Appropriate Authority in numerous cases including at trial and before the Police Appeals Tribunal, many of which involved serious allegations of misconduct.