PBL -v- The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-004214

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

5 March 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
PBL

-v-

THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(HO Ref: 029391856)
(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 Acknowledgements of service filed by the Defendant and the Interested Party;

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 “PBL”.
  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 Claimant is granted permission to amend the Statement of Facts and Grounds, in accordance with the draft dated 5 September 2025.
  5. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  6. The Claimant is ordered to pay the Interested Party’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, which are summarily assessed in the sum of £1,800.50. This is a final order unless within 14 days of the date of this order the Claimant files with the Court and serves on the Interested Party a notice of objection setting out the reasons why they should not be required to pay costs (either as required by the costs order, or at all). If the Claimant files and serves notice of objection, the Interested Party may, within 14 days of the date it is served, file and serve submissions in response. The Claimant may, within 7 days of the date on which the Interested Party’s response is served, file and serve submissions in reply. A Judge will then make a final determination on costs on the papers.

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
  2. The Claimant is a national of Iran who applied for asylum in the UK for fear of persecution due to his political opinions and/or race. His application was refused by the Interested Party on 20 October 2023. On 23 August 2024, his appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”), at an oral hearing at which he was represented by counsel. Permission to appeal was refused by a different Judge of the FTT on 16 October 2024. Permission to appeal was refused by the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) on 4 December 2024.
  3. This application for permission to apply for judicial review is a challenge to a decision of the 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.
  4. 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 FTT: see section 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.”
  7. 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]).
  8. 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.
  9. I accept the submissions made in the Interested Party’s Summary Grounds of Defence at paragraphs 21-30, and the Submissions in response to the Claimant’s application to amend the Statement of Facts and Grounds, at paragraphs 8 – 17.
  10. Under Ground 1, the Claimant contends that the UT decision-making was procedurally unfair because the Judge failed to engage with the substance of the grounds in a meaningful way; his reasons were wrong; and he failed to give adequate reasons.
  11. In truth, Ground 1 is directed at the substance of the UT’s analysis and reasoning, but there is no longer any jurisdiction to grant permission on that basis. The Claimant expresses his disagreement with the approach taken by both the FTT and the UT, which is also not a sufficient basis upon which to grant permission. The reasons given by the UT Judge were adequate and met the required legal standard. Under Ground 1, the Claimant has not identified any procedural defect amounting to a fundamental breach of natural justice.
  12. Under Ground 2, the Claimant contends that the UT was not properly constituted when determining the application for permission to appeal without a hearing; failed to give proper consideration to the need for an oral hearing; and failed to give reasons for that decision. The Claimant has failed to establish a “genuinely disputable question that the exception applies” on these grounds.
  13. Pursuant to rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the UT Judge, sitting alone, was entitled to make the decision without a hearing, but he was required to have regard to any view expressed by a party. When applying for permission to appeal, the Claimant was asked at question 7.1 of the form “Do you want to request that your application for permission to appeal is considered at a hearing? Yes (Explain why) No”. Note 7.1. stated “Your request will be considered, but the judge will decide whether a hearing will be required for your application for permission to appeal”, thus making it plain that a request for an oral hearing would not necessarily be granted.
  14. The Claimant ticked the “No” box, indicating that he did not want an oral hearing. The Claimant did not put forward any reasons why it was procedurally unfair for his application to be determined on the papers. The UT Judge expressly considered whether or not to hold an oral hearing and decided it was not necessary to do so. In the circumstances of this case, the UT Judge gave adequate reasons for declining to hold an oral hearing.
  15. In my judgment, this claim does not come within any of the exceptions in section 11A(4) of the 2007 Act.
  16. The Claimant also appears to challenge the decision of the FTT dismissing the appeal, dated 23 August 2024, and the refusal of permission to appeal by the FTT on 16 October 2024. However, permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the FTT is never granted by this Court in these circumstances because of the statutory rights of appeal. This was the position prior to the change in the law abolishing the judicial review jurisdiction in respect of the UT. It remains the position after the change in the law: see section 11A(6) of the 2007 Act.
  17. Therefore the application is dismissed.