GVZ -v- The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003977

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

30 March 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GVZ

-v-

THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(HO Ref: 1212-0001-2114-7188)
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant, and the letter from the Interested Party dated 3 December 2025;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a. The name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “GVZ”.
  2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    a. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    b. If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    c. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is to be named as the Interested Party and not the Second Defendant.
  5. The application is dismissed.
  6. No order for costs.

Reasons

    1. The Secretary of State for the Home Department should be named as the Interested Party and not the Second Defendant.
    1. This application for permission to apply for judicial review is a challenge to a decision of the Upper Tribunal (“UT”). It is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 11A of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). Generally, such challenges are excluded by reason of section 11A(2) of the 2007 Act.
    2. Parliament has abolished the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court to determine applications for judicial review of decisions of the UT refusing permission to appeal against decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”): see section 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
    3. This change to the law applies to decisions made on or after 14 July 2022. Its effect is that decisions of the UT refusing permission to appeal are final and cannot be challenged in the Administrative Court. In this case, the UT made its decision refusing permission to appeal on 18 October 2025.
    4. Permission to apply for judicial review will be granted only if the claim falls within any of the exceptions at section 11A(4) of the 2007 Act which provides:
      “Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply so far as the decision involves or gives rise to any question as to whether –
      (a) the Upper Tribunal has or had a valid application before it under section 11(4)(b),
      (b) the Upper Tribunal is or was properly constituted for the purpose of dealing with the application, or
      (c) the Upper Tribunal is acting or has acted –
      (i) in bad faith, or
      (ii) in such a procedurally defective way as amounts to a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.”
    5. It is not enough to assert that one of these exceptions applies. A claimant must establish a “genuinely disputable question that the exception applies” (R(LA Albania) v UTIAC [2023] EWCA Civ 1337, per Dingemans LJ at [37] – [38]).
    6. According to Saini J. in R(Oceana) v UTIAC [2023] EWHC 791 (Admin), a “fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice” requires “a claimant to identify a failure in process which is so grave as to rob the process of any legitimacy”. That is a substantial hurdle which has not been met in this case.
    7. The Claimant’s grounds of challenge (1) to (4) are directed at the substance of the UT’s analysis and reasoning, and express disagreement with the approach taken by both the FTT and the UT. The Claimant has not identified any procedural defect amounting to a fundamental breach of natural justice. In particular, the allegation in Ground 4 (paragraph 11 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds) that the FTT Judge erred in failing to give adequate weight to the medical and expert opinions is not a “procedural irregularity” – it is a challenge to the Judge’s approach to the evidence. Furthermore, the reasons given by the UT were adequate and met the required legal standard.
    8. This claim does not come within any of the exceptions in section 11A(4) of the 2007 Act.
    9. Therefore the application is dismissed.
    10. I have granted an anonymity order. Both the FTT and the UT granted anonymity because of the Claimant’s mental health issues, as well as issues relating to domestic violence. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.