Rupinder Kaur Matharu

Rupinder specialises in a broad range of family law including high-net-worth individuals and international family law. This can include issues relating to children, such as child arrangements, international relocation and abduction, divorce and finances which can cover settlement agreements, pre and post nuptial agreements.

Rupinder also specialises in immigration law for both personal and business immigration, advising on a range of applications. Rupinder is able to analyse and assimilate information quickly and accurately. She has an inherent ability to identify the key issues underlying any legal matter and will either strengthen or defend the legal basis of a case from the outset. Rupinder also works on contentious immigration matters involving complex Judicial Reviews in both the lower and higher courts, such as the Court of Appeal, European Court of Justice and the Supreme Court.

Rupinder’s tenacious and persuasive style regularly leads to a successful outcome. Rupinder has a strong rapport with clients and is clear and concise when advising on complex areas of law and ensures her clients are able to understand what is said. She is helpful and professional at all times and has a reputation for pursuing a client’s case in a proportionate and compassionate manner. This is reflective in Rupinder being ranked in Chambers and Partners for 2 years in a row now for 2023 and 2024.

Rupinder has several reported and broadcasted cases.

Notable Cases / Articles / Publications / Journals

Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department C 165/16 ECLI:EU:C:2017:862 (14 November 2017) – The synopsis of this case can be found above and you can read more about the case at the following links:

• BBC News
• The Guardian
• Financial Times
• The Times

London Borough of Richmond v Caffe Mamma Ltd (Public committee hearing before the council on 13 November 2017) – This case involved a statutory penalty imposed on the business after an illegal worker was found to be working at the premises. There was a subsequent licence review of the premises for which we successfully represented the business. You can read more about the case here:

• Richmond and Twickenham Times
• Diário de Notícias

ICS Car Srl and Fanel Toia v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 394 [2016] (19 April 2016) – The synopsis of this case can be found above and you can read more about the case at the following links:

• BBC News
• The Guardian

Waad Al Baghdadi v Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/29909/2013 [2014] – This case involved a revocation of the Appellant’s Indefinite Leave to Remain. The Appellant subsequently made a claim for asylum and statelessness. After preparation of the case by Rupinder, the Home Office withdrew their decision.

• BBC News
• The Guardian

This is the BBC News broadcast and Rupinder can be found at 4:13.

Reported Cases

Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department C 165/16 ECLI:EU:C:2017:862 (14 November 2017) –This case was heard in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice on 15 May 2017 after the referral made by the Court of Appeal on 8 March 2016 (as per above) based on the legal analysis of Strasbourg jurisprudence and free movement. The final judgment was delivered on 14 November 2017 found to be in the Appellant, Mr Lounes, favour. It has become a ‘lead’ case in this area which discusses the applicability of Directive 2004/38/EC against domestic legislation. The judges found that the Home Office had erred in their decision and that EEA Nationals holding dual nationality (naturalising after acquiring Permanent Residence) with their home state and host state could benefit from the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-165/16

Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 99 [2017] (28 February 2017) – This case was before the Court of Appeal and dealt with a challenge to the UK’s rules on the rights of non-EU nationals who are, or have been, family members of EU nationals residing in the UK. Domestic legislation which implemented the EU Citizenship Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC) provided that, in order to retain a right of residence in the UK following divorce from an EU national, a person in the Appellant’s position had to be working or self-sufficient at the time of the divorce. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/99.html

The Queen on the application of Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWHC 436 [2016] (8 March 2016) – This case was before the Court of Appeal and was an important referral to the European Court of Justice in respect of the free movement rights of a dual Spanish-British national under Directive 2004/38/EC and whether the EEA national/Union citizen remains a beneficiary of the Directive after acquiring British nationality. That referral was premised upon the underlying propriety of a decision by the Home Office that the EEA national can no longer benefit from the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 given that the definition of an EEA national has been amended to exclude British citizens following McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department (European citizenship). http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/436.html

Agyarko, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 2015/0129 and Ikuga, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 2015/0130 (Heard on 6 and 7 April 2016) – This case was before the Supreme Court and dealt with whether there was a requirement that an applicant for leave to remain in the UK, who formed a relationship with a British citizen while present in the UK unlawfully, must demonstrate either “insurmountable obstacles” to that relationship continuing in a different country or “exceptional circumstances” to justify consideration outside the scope of the Immigration Rules, is compliant with Article 8 ECHR and whether the current tests were compliant with Article 8 ECHR. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/440.html

ICS Car Srl and Fanel Toia v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 394 [2016] (19 April 2016) – This case was before the Court of Appeal and dealt with extremely complex points of law and was a test case on statutory penalties concerning clandestine entrants. It challenged penalties issued by Border Control in respect of a Carriers’ Liability for carrying clandestine entrants through the Port of Calais in a vehicle. The arguments considered included the assessment of a hauliers’ statutory defence against the Code of Practice and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It was the first one to be heard in the Court of Appeal in over 14 years. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/394.html

Maharjan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Secretary [2016] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (14 December 2016) and Ghale, A (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] (Admin) (14 December 2016) – These cases were linked before the Administrative Court and involved a challenge of the Immigration Rules and Article 8 ECHR. It included a challenge for Unlawful Detention and the Home Office’s failure to lawfully assess the Appellants’ respective fresh claims and the omission to consider paragraph 353B of the Immigration Rules. It also had a challenge to the Home Office’s unlawful and inconsistent consideration of the application against other applicants as well as failure to lawfully discharge Rule 353. The Home Office had also certified the cases on the basis that deception was used however we were successful in this challenge and this point was conceded by the Home Office. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/3719.html