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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000502

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:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

MHS

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(HO Ref: A1850141)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity direction, an application for permission to apply for judicial review and an application for interim relief;

Following consideration of the pleadings and documents filed by the Claimant and the Acknowledgment of Service and documents filed by the Defendant;

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 “MHS”.
  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 application for judicial review and the application for interim relief are refused.
  5. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  6. The Defendant do pay the Claimant’s reasonable costs, to be assessed if not agreed, up to 16 December 2024. No order in respect of any costs incurred by either party after 16 December 2024. This is a final order unless, within 14 days of the date of this order, either party files and serves a notice of objection setting out the reasons why they oppose this order. The other party may then file and serve submissions in response, within 7 days of service of the objection. A Judge will then make a final determination on costs, either on the papers, or at any renewal hearing.

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is a refugee and he and his family members claim to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
  2. There has been prolonged and unexplained delay on the part of the Defendant in determining the Claimant’s application for naturalisation as a British citizen. The application was made on 13 October 2023. Despite considerable efforts by the Claimant, the Defendant did not determine the application until 16 December 2024, when he was notified that he had been granted citizenship.
  3. This claim, which challenged the ongoing delay in determining the application, was filed at the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 4 November 2024.
  4. On 13 November 2024, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service, with a proposed consent order, the terms of which were that the Defendant would make a decision within 3 months of the sealing of the order, and pay the Claimant’s reasonable costs. The Claimant found the Defendant’s proposals unacceptable and proposed a shorter time scale, and asked for a formal apology and compensation in the sum of £10,000 if the deadline was not met. The parties could not reach agreement.
  5. The Upper Tribunal transferred the claim to the High Court on 31 January 2025 as it fell outside its jurisdiction.
  6. I am satisfied that the claim became academic from 16 December 2024, when citizenship was granted. If there was ongoing unreasonable delay at the date of the hearing, the Court could have ordered the Defendant to make her decision within a specified timescale. However, the decision has already been made and so no meaningful remedy can be granted by the Court in this claim. The Court does not grant compensation for maladministration, but the Claimant can pursue his complaint of maladministration with the Ombudsman.
  7. The Claimant has raised new matters in the application for interim relief, dated 24 April 2025, which fall outside the scope of the original claim. If the Defendant has still not returned his passport, the Claimant should make a formal complaint.
  8. On the matter of costs, on the balance of probabilities, I consider that the claim would have been successful at a hearing, and that the Defendant was prompted to make its decision on 16 December 2024 by the issue of the judicial review claim, and might well have delayed further if the claim had not been issued. In my view, it was reasonable for the Claimant to doubt whether the Defendant would comply with its proposed deadline, in view of the previous history, and the lack of any explanation for the delay. For these reasons, I consider that the Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs up to 16 December 2024. Thereafter, each party should bear its own costs. I consider it would be unreasonable to order the Claimant, as a litigant in person, to pay the Defendant’s costs after 16 December 2024, having regard to the Defendant’s conduct overall.

Signed: Mrs Justice Lang
Dated: 29 April 2025