BLP -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON -001085

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

23 May 2025

Before:

Dan Kolinsky KC
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
BLP (anonymity granted)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY DAN KOLINSKY KC (SITTING AS DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)

  1. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Costs: No order as to costs.
  3. (a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (I) above:

  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is
    served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

  • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
  • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a
    hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages).

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

  • the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is
    served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the
    permission hearing;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date. 
  1. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 serve: days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) This is a challenge to (1) the Defendant’s failure to provide accommodation pursuant to s.4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 following acceptance of his eligibility on 25 March 2025 and (2) the Claimant’s detention under immigration powers since 7 March 2025.

(2) The claim sought interim relief. Directions were made by Lang J on 10 April 2025. A hearing was listed to determine permission and interim relief on 29 April 2025 but this was vacated.

(3) On 17 April 2025 the Defendant informed the Court (pursuant to para 6 of Lang J’s order) that the Claimant would be accommodated by 1 May 2025 and released from immigration detention.

(4) The Defendant has now filed summary grounds of resistance and disclosure
documents.

(5) The four grounds of challenge all focus on the issue of whether the Defendant acted unlawfully in failing to provide accommodation and thereby detaining the Claimant. On the information available to me and in the light of the analysis in the Defendant’s summary grounds, I consider that it is not arguable that the Defendant was in breach of the Hardial Singh (ground 1) principles, its Adults at Risk policy (ground 2) or article 5 of the ECHR (ground 4) in the time taken to provide accommodation. Similarly, I do not consider that there was arguably unlawful delay in applying the Humnyntskyi principles (ground 3). The provision of suitable accommodation appears to me to have been provided within an appropriately short period in the circumstances of this case.

(6) The Defendant’s acknowledgment of service included a claim for costs. I have made no order as to costs in respect of this as the Defendant missed deadlines for response set out in Lang J’s order. On the information available to me, it seems that the fairest and most proportionate order is for there to be no order as to costs. However, I have left in place the provisions which allow the Claimant to make submissions on costs even if no application to renew is made. I am conscious that costs were reserved in respect of the vacation of the interim relief hearing and it seems to me that it should be open to the Claimant to make submissions in respect of its costs if so advised (and if the parties are unable to agree the appropriate position in respect of costs).

Signed: Dan Kolinsky KC
Date: 23 May 2025