SA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/213/2023

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

3 April 2023

Before:

Mr Matthew Butt KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
SA

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

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
ORDER by Mr Matthew Butt KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, this case is to be referred to as R (SA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4)(d) no non-party may obtain a copy of any document filed in this case other than on application to the court, and on notice to the parties so that suitable redactions can be made.
  4. The case is suitable to be listed for an expedited substantive hearing as soon as possible with a time estimate of half a day. The parties are to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.

Observations

  1. The Claimant is an asylum seeker from Pakistan who entered the UK with his wife and two year old son on 01.02.22.
  2. The Claimant applied for asylum support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which was granted on 08.03.22.
  3. The family has been accommodated in various hotels since arrival. On 11.11.22 the Defendant refused the Claimant’s request for expedited dispersal on medical grounds. This position was maintained within pre-action correspondence sent by the Defendant.
  4. Within her acknowledgment of service, the Defendant has changed position. She now accepts on the basis of information contained within the claim form that expedited dispersal should take place in this case and the Defendant’s accommodation providers are now looking for a suitable property. The Defendant submits that this claim is therefore now academic.
  5. In an update provided by the Claimant dated 24.03.23, it is clear that the matter has not been resolved between the parties. The Defendant was still as of this date unable to confirm when an offer of suitable long term accommodation would be made.
  6. It is not in dispute in this case that (a) the current accommodation is not adequate (b) the claimant and his son suffer from medical conditions which make the provision of adequate accommodation urgent (or at least requiring expedited dispersal) and (c) the Defendant has not offered the Claimant adequate accommodation to date. If I am wrong and these three matters or any of them are not agreed by the Defendant then they are at least arguable.
  7. The Defendant has failed to provide accommodation which in the words of section 96 IAA 2009 is “adequate for the needs of the supported person and dependants”. As such this claim is arguable and not academic and I therefore grant permission to bring a claim in judicial review. It is also arguable that the failure to offer adequate accommodation is in breach of the Defendant’s policy and that it is unreasonable in the circumstances as summarised above and as set out in the grounds of claim.
  8. The Claimant has requested an anonymity order. No basis is given for this, however, as this is an asylum claim the reasons for such an application are obvious. I therefore direct that pursuant to Rule 39.2 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction this case is to be referred to as R (SA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  9. I also make an order under CPR 5.4B that no non-party may obtain a copy of any document filed in this case other than on application to the court, and on notice to the parties so that suitable redactions can be made.
  10. The position in relation to the Claimant’s wife and son will need to be addressed at the substantive hearing in the event that it is necessary for reference to be made to their names.
  11. The case is suitable for an expedited substantive hearing to be listed with a time estimate of half a day as soon as possible.

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 21 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 [3] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  7. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration hearing may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.