This case involved a misrepresentation of UK immigration rules which had persuaded an individual to enter into a contract with an immigration advice company in the QFC and a claim for compensation for various resulting visa costs after the individual was unable to proceed with the application. Issues included whether the claimant who because of the advice given was not the main visa applicant had contracted with the company. Also considered was a counterclaim by the immigration advice company that under the terms of their contract full fees would still be payable if the visa applicant decided not to proceed with their visa application.