The Supreme Court has held that changes to the Immigration Rules for non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) nationals applying to enter or remain in the UK on the family migration route – which were supposed to come into force on 9 July – are unlawful, as were all the rule changes made since 2008. The Home office was forced to take emergency action to present its rules on the so-called 'points-based system' – applied since 2008 – to the House of Lords, as the Commons was already in recess.

The proposed changes included introducing a new minimum income threshold of £18,600 for sponsoring the settlement in the UK of a spouse or partner, or fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner of non-European Economic Area (EEA) nationality, with a higher threshold for any children also sponsored of £22,400 for one child and an additional £2,400 for each further child. They would also have abolished immediate settlement for the migrant spouses and partner where a couple have been living together overseas for at least four years, and requiring them to complete a five year probationary period.

Furthermore, adult and elderly dependants will only be allowed to settle in the UK if they can demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided by a relative in the UK. They will also be required to apply from overseas rather than switch in the UK from another category.

The new rules had been attacked by both the legal profession and organisations representing the rights and welfare of immigrants, including those offering expert advice and expert witness services.

Writing in the Law Society Gazette solicitor Laura Devine said: "The...changes to the Immigration Rules should be a cause for concern. First, the new financial requirement for settlement will likely have a disproportionate impact on women and certain minority communities who statistically earn less money. Moreover, the requirement does not take into account the differences in cost of living in different regions of the UK and will therefore unfairly burden those living in lower-wage areas." She also criticised the Government's 'dubious' manoeuvring to remove the protection of human rights legislation to claims.