ADISR -v- Upper Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case numbers: AC-2025-LON-000534
AC-2025-LON-000636
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
29 April 2025
Before:
Anneli Howard KC
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Between:
The King
on the application of
ADISR
(Claimant)
-v-
Upper Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
(Defendant)
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Interested Party)
Order
Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 23.12, 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
Having regard to the correspondence from the Interested Party to the Court in Case AC- 2025-LON-000636 dated 24 January and 4 March 2025, indicating that it is on notice of the claim in those proceedings
ORDER BY Anneli Howard KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- Joint Case Management
Given the substantive and procedural overlaps and common factual history, it is appropriate to case manage and decide the claims in Cases AC-2025-LON-000534 and AC-2025-LON-000636 together.
2. Anonymity
(a) Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2, the identity of the Claimant shall not be directly or indirectly disclosed. The proceedings shall be known as R (ADISR) v Upper Tier Tribunal.
(b) Pursuant to CPR r39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the Claimant’s name, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. There shall be substituted, for all purposes in this case, in place of references to the Claimant by name, the letters “ADISR”.
- Permission:
(a) Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
(b) The application is certified as totally without merit.
- No order as to costs.
REASONS
(1) Anonymity: The claim relies on personal and sensitive information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. Anonymity was granted in the previous proceedings before the First Tier and Upper Tier Tribunals and, although no formal application has been made, anonymity should be continued to protect the Claimant’s interests.
(2) On 8 November 2023, the Claimant was refused permission by the SSHD to stay in the UK as a refugee on the basis of humanitarian protection, family and private life or discretionary leave. His appeal was dismissed by the First Tier Tribunal on 27 August 2024 and he sought to appeal that decision to the Upper Tier Tribunal. The UTIAC refused permission to appeal on 20 12 2024 on the basis that the application was filed out of time.
(3) The Claimant has brought two claims against the same decision, which are appropriate to case manage and determine together. Case AC-2025-LON-000534 concerns judicial review of the UTIAC refusal to grant permission to appeal; Case AC- 2025-LON-000636 involves an application for judicial review commenced before the UTIAC which has been transferred to the Administrative Court.
(4) This is a challenge to a decision of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal. It is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of s. 11A of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Generally, such challenges are excluded by reason of section 11A(2) of the 2007 Act. Permission to apply for judicial review will be granted only if the claim falls within any of the exceptions at section 11A(4) and/or (5) of the 2007 Act. Neither claim meets that requirement.
Time Limits
(5) The deadline for the appeal was 22 October 2024 but the application was not filed until 23 October 2024 so was filed one day late. The Claimant challenges the recorded date of receipt and the classification of the appeal as being out of time as well as the UTIAC’s refusal to investigate the merits of the case and/or hold an oral hearing.
(6) The Claimant has presented e-filing evidence showing that he attempted to file the appeal on 22 October 2024 at 21.27 pm. However, the version of the application filed was not accessible via the e-filing system and on 23 October 2024 at 11.36am, the UTIAC Registry requested him to send the application by email. Receipt of the submission was confirmed by email at 11.59 am.
(7) The Court has every sympathy with the Claimant’s personal situation and the fact
that he is unrepresented. However, litigants in person cannot be excused from complying with the requirements of the Courts’ procedural rules. A lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court do not apply to litigants in person: see Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 at [18]. It is advisable not to leave filings to the last minute and to allow time for any unexpected technical difficulties.
(8) The Upper Tribunal Rules clearly state (Rule 12(1)) that, for the purposes of calculating time, any acts required by the rules “must be done by 5pm on that day”. If that deadline is not met, then the filing will be deemed to have taken place the following day.
(9) Accordingly, the attempted filing on 22 October 2024 at 21.27pm was out of time in any event. Regardless of the IT accessibility issues, the claim was correctly registered as having been filed on 23 October 2024.
(10) Accordingly, there is no basis to impugn the UTIAC’s decision to reject the appeal as out of time and both claims are both certified as totally without merit.
Absence of Certificate of service
(11) Despite repeated reminders, the Claimant has not filed a Certificate of Service within 7 days of issue of the judicial review proceedings or confirmed that service has been effected within the deadline stated. No Acknowledgment of Service has been filed by the Defendant or the Interested Party in Case AC-2025-LON-000534. On that basis the claim in Case AC-2025-LON-000534 should, in any event, be dismissed for lack
of service.
Signed: Anneli Howard KC
Date: 29.4.2025