RH -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001716

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

7 November 2024

Before:

Mr Justice Foxton

Between:

The King on the application of RH

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

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 Interested Party

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  2. The application is to be listed for 2 days; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 39.2, the identity of the Claimant shall not be directly or indirectly disclosed and these proceedings shall be known as “R (RH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  4. All issues of costs arising from the discontinuation of proceedings by the First and Third Claimants shall be reserved to the judicial review hearing.

Observations

1. This is a complex and important challenge to the lawfulness of a Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 556 by which provisions allowing care workers granted leave to enter the UK to be accompanied by their dependents in certain circumstances were removed.

2. The challenge is brought on three grounds:
a. A breach of the PSED.
b. A breach of the Tameside duty of enquiry.
c. An irrationality challenge.

3. The Defendant challenges RH’s standing to bring the claim on the basis that RH is not currently in receipt of social care although she is an individual with care needs. However, I am satisfied RH is able to overcome standing as a procedural bar at the permission stage, albeit it will be open to the Defendant to address the issue of standing as a matter of discretion on the hearing of the application for substantive relief (R (Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers) v Bristol City Council [2015] EWHC 3615 (Admin), [10]),

4. So far as the merits of the three challenges are concerned:

5. Ground 1: It is clear that the Defendant did carry out a PSED assessment (on 23 November 2023) and the Claimant’s original complaint that no such assessment was carried out is not arguable. However, the Amended Grounds submit that the PSED conducted was not sufficient to discharge the Defendant’s legal duty. That is, for the reasons the Defendant gives, a much more difficult challenge for the Claimant, but I am satisfied the test for permission is met.

6. Ground 2: the extent of any Tameside obligation on the Secretary of State’s part and whether it was complied with offers considerable scope for argument as to what was actually done and what was required. Once again, I am satisfied this is arguable.

7. Ground 3: Ground 3 overlaps with Grounds 1 and 2 in its field of enquiry engaged. While as a free-standing challenge, it present the Claimant’s with a particularly challenging target, it meets the relatively low threshold for permission.

8. RH lacks litigation capacity and is a protected party under CPR 21(2)(d) and I am satisfied an anonymity order is appropriate under CPR 39.2(3)(d).

Case Management Directions

1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.

3. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 4 weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

5. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

6. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

7. The parties to provide alternative or revised directions within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with the case management directions.