- Tribunal decides wasted costs orders cannot be made against Home Office representatives
- When can a tribunal be forced to pay the costs of judicially reviewing it?
- Upper Tribunal encourages parties to reach agreement on costs. Or else.
- Costs in public law cases: what counts as a win?
- Claimant duty of candour in judicial review proceedings
How to correct a mistake in a Country Guidance case
What happens where the Upper Tribunal makes a mistake in a Country Guidance case? And in what circumstances will the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an Upper Tribunal decision that has already been remitted to the First Tier Tribunal? Both of these interesting issues crop up in AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 944 (11 July 2017). The Case of AA AA was an Iraqi who claimed asylum in the UK in 2009. His appeal has now been in the court system for over 8 years (and counting). The initial application was rejected and several appeals dismissed until...14th August 2017
How expensive are UK immigration applications and is this a problem?
The cost of making an immigration or nationality application has risen extremely steeply in recent years. Annual increases of 20% or 25% per year are now standard, bringing the current cost of an application for Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2017 to £2,297. The actual cost of processing such an application is £252, so the Home Office is generating considerable income from each application. The cost of settlement is only one of the last steps in a long journey of applications, though. The total costs of applying to enter the UK as a spouse, for example, are much higher once all the different applications and fees are taken into account:...3rd August 2017
When might an appeal continue even though Home Office withdraws the decision?
In the case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FtT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine)  UKUT 292 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal, chaired by Mr Ockelton, has considered the application of rule 17 of the procedure rules. This rule provides that where the Home Office withdraws a decision which is under appeal, the appeal will normaly be treated as withdrawn: 17.—(1) A party may give notice of the withdrawal of their appeal— (a) by providing to the Tribunal a written notice of withdrawal of the appeal; or (b) orally at a hearing, and in either case must specify the reasons for that withdrawal. (2) The Tribunal must...20th July 2017
Tribunal decides wasted costs orders cannot be made against Home Office representatives
In the case of Awuah and Others (Wasted Costs Orders – HOPOs – Tribunal Powers)  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 be made against a Home Office Presenting Officer. They can however still be made against representatives for appellants. This is not what one would describe as a level playing field on which the same rules and obligations apply to all players equally. The official headnote reads: (i) The First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) is not empowered to make a Wasted Costs...19th July 2017
When wrongly denied a right of appeal, the solution is to appeal
The nature of applications which attract a right of appeal have been greatly restricted by the Immigration Act 2014. In summary, only refused human rights applications, or applications for protection, are appealable. All other applications can be challenged by way of Judicial Review or administrative review only. What is the position of individuals who argue, however, that they were wrongly denied a right of appeal? In the case of Saqib Zia Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 424, the Court of Appeal found that the appropriate forum to challenge these decisions is the First-Tier Tribunal. Background The procedural history of the case is complex, but...18th July 2017
Guidance issued on renewal applications following non-admittance by the Upper Tribunal
The case of KM (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 437 (21 June 2017) raises an interesting, if niche, procedural point. The case is relevant to parties who have had an appeal dismissed by the Upper Tribunal (UT); who wish to challenge the findings of the UT on a point of law; but who miss the deadline to make the application for permission to appeal against the determination to the Court of Appeal so that the application is not admitted; and wish to renew their applications directly to the Court of Appeal In this case the Court of Appeal gives guidance on how and...4th July 2017