In FGF v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Appeal No: SN/01/2022 the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has concluded that it has the power to award costs in reviews, in certain circumstances. Background FGF applied for naturalisation as a British citizen on 27 January 2020. The Home Secretary refused...
The High Court has provided a warning to practitioners about the importance of pursuing negotiations in false imprisonment claims. The case of Moradi v The Home Office [2022] EWHC 3125 (KB) also concerns the timings of those negotiations. The judge took the opportunity to express his concerns that the parties...
In a reasoned determination on costs, the High Court has found that a judicial review brought by seven West Midlands councils over unfair allocation of responsibilities for housing asylum seekers did not have a causal link to the eventual change in Home Office policy in this area. The case is...
In R (Shahi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 1676 the Court of Appeal held that a grant of interim relief did not entitle a claimant to his costs, where there was no settlement or court determination of the underlying legal issue. Interim relief followed...
A costs judge has backed a leading firm of solicitors in its dispute with a former client over a £194,000 bill for work on her asylum case. The judgment is Farrer & Co LLP v Yertayeva [2021] EWHC B16 (Costs). Ms Yertayeva is a Kazakhstani businesswoman, described by the judge...
Procedure-wise, immigration judicial reviews don’t tend to be that speedy. When you get to the end of the road, you may have run out of steam when it comes to settling the issue of costs. But if applicant / appellant representatives are to make it work in a world where...
As we continue to grapple with the impact of Brexit, my colleagues and I experienced an increase in Dublin III certification and removal cases at the tail end of last year. In many of those cases, removal directions were deferred and certification decisions were eventually withdrawn. Despite this signalling a...
The case of JH (Palestinian Territories) v Upper Tribunal [2020] EWCA Civ 919 builds on the principle that the Home Office can be found liable for expenses in Cart/Eba type judicial review cases. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the issue of costs should not be decided by the High...
D, P and K v Lord Chancellor [2020] EWHC 736 (Admin) is a rare example of the High Court making a costs order against a lower tribunal. The context is a dispute between a well-known immigration law firm, Duncan Lewis, and the President of the First-tier Tribunal, Michael Clements. President...
The Court of Appeal has held that the UK government can be asked to pay expenses where a judicial review has been brought against the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to grant permission to appeal. The test case of Faqiri v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2019] EWCA Civ 151 has...
This case is an unlawful detention claim based on shocking failures by the Home Office to comply with rules on how victims of torture and trafficking should be treated. In R (SW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2684 (Admin), the High Court has ruled that...
In ZN (Afghanistan) and KA (Iraq) [2018] EWCA Civ 1059, the Court of Appeal considered the tricky issue of costs in public law cases, in a scenario where the appeals were withdrawn following consent orders. The main points The judgment is interesting for three reasons: it summarises various authorities on...
A heavyweight Presidential panel sitting in the First-tier Tribunal has made multiple awards of costs against the Home Office for unreasonable behaviour and given guidance on the proper approach to making such awards in future. Despite the decision being promulgated in December 2017, the Upper Tribunal’s Reporting Committee has elected...
When feeding my son, I sometimes have to heap the spoon up with something he likes to eat, to disguise something he does not. This is what the Home Office did when applying for permission to appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Barry [2018] EWCA Civ...
Contrary to recent guidance from the Upper Tribunal, issued by former President McCloskey no less, an application to that tribunal for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a costs order made in a judicial review should be subject to a “first appeals test”, not a “second appeals...
A month ago, Free Movement reported on the detention of Abdulrahman Mohammed. He was awarded the substantial sum of £78,500 by the High Court after being detained unlawfully by the Home Office. In a subsequent judgment, the same court has increased the amount the Home Office must pay, after it...
Last week’s Court of Appeal judgment in R (Agyemang) v London Borough of Haringey [2017] EWCA Civ 1630 reveals familiar tactics by local authorities resisting requests for support under the Children Act 1989. The claimant-appellant, a Ghanaian mother of a five-year-old child, brought judicial review proceedings with an application for interim relief...
In the case of Awuah and Others (Wasted Costs Orders – HOPOs – Tribunal Powers) [2017] UKFTT 555 (IAC) the tribunal has decided that a wasted costs order — an order that a representative personally pay the costs incurred by the other side because of poor personal conduct — cannot...
“Not often” is the answer. Only if the tribunal acts in an improper way. Incompetence or unlawfulness is not sufficient. In this case, R (on the application of Gudanaviciene) v Immigration and Asylum First Tier Tribunal [2017] EWCA Civ 352, an EU national was facing deportation. She appealed the decision...
The issue of costs in immigration cases continues to vex the courts. It is supposed to be unusual for the higher courts to have to deal with costs issues but in recent years we have seen some very low quality and controversial costs decisions at first instance in the Administrative...
Hot on the heels of a new consultation on the duty of candour in judicial review proceedings, the Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment on the same subject: R (on the application of Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 416. It...
The High Court has awarded damages of just £3,750 to an Algerian man for a period of five months of unlawful detention. This was just the latest period of immigration detention for Mr Sino, though, who has been detained for a cumulative total of seven years and two months. Mr...
A Tier 4 student prohibited from working was accused of the Home Office of breach of his conditions of leave by taking part time employment. A decision was taken to remove him under the pre-Immigration Act 2014 version of section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. he was served...
I am starting to detect subtle* signs that the Upper Tribunal is unimpressed by attempts to litigate ETS cases from within the UK. These are the cases where a person stands accused (on unknown, undisclosed evidence) of cheating in English language tests administered by the company Educational Testing Services. In many...
With many thanks to the excellent and eagle-eyed Tim Buley of Landmark Chambers, this post covers the procedural protections against costs orders for legally aided and other litigants in the Upper Tribunal. This is a major issue in judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal; no-one who has been following...
In the recent case of R (on the application of Turay) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 485 (IAC) Mr Ockelton, the Deputy President of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, concludes (1) that applicants for judicial review cannot supplement or amend their...
The Court of Appeal says “yes”, it is generally lawful to detain immigration detainees in prisons rather than detention centres. The case is R (On the Application Of Idira) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1187 and the Court rules that there is no principle...
New (to me at any rate) is the Presidential Guidance Note No 1 of 2015: Wasted Costs and Unreasonable Costs, signed on 18 May 2015. It goes a bit further than Cancino in emphasising the high threshold for wasted costs. Arguably too far: Even where a hearing has to be adjourned because...
Discretion in relation to costs is a wide one and awarding costs on an indemnity basis against an unsuccessful party is a departure from the norm. The substantive matter in the case of R (on the application of Kaienga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 272...
In the case of R (on the application of SN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (striking out – principles) IJR [2015] UKUT 227(IAC) the President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber not only strikes out the applicant’s judicial review claim but also goes on to make...
The Presidents of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers sat together in the First-tier Tribunal case of Cancino (costs – First-tier Tribunal – new powers) [2015] UKFTT 00059 (IAC) in order to give guidance on when legal costs might become payable in immigration cases. The power to make awards of legal...
The previously reported case of R (on the application of Bilal Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the home Department (candour/reassessment duties; ETS :alternative remedy) IJR [2014] UKUT 439 (IAC) has been re-titled and I think the headnote has been supplemented as well. The case is important on the ongoing...
The First-tier Tribunal now has a new set of procedure rules: the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, which came into force on 20 October 2014. The Rules are streamlined in some parts and the overriding objective is modified to emphasise fairness and justice more than...
For the first time, it will now be possible for the immigration tribunal to make awards of costs in statutory appeals. The power is conferred by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/2604), specifically by rule 9. The new rules come into effect on 20 October...
An important recent case slipped under my radar last year, mainly because it has not been publicly reported on one of the publicly accessible case law repositories like BAILII. The case is R (on the application of Jasbir Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2873...
