Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Special Immigration Appeals Commission (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000883

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

26 July 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Foster DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department

-v-

Special Immigration Appeals Commission

and

FGF
H7
H15
(Interested parties)

Order

Before the Honourable Mrs Justice FOSTER DBE

UPON reading the Application of H7 and H15 (‘the Applicants’) dated 26 April 2024

It is hereby ORDERED:

Interested Parties

  1. The Applicants are added to these proceedings as Interested Parties.

Anonymity

2. The Applicants’ application for an anonymity order is granted under CPR r. 39.2(4) and/or the general case management powers in CPR r. 3.1(2). The Applicants in this action shall have anonymity until further order. No report or publication of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Applicants.
3. The Applicants be anonymised in these proceedings as ‘H7’ and ‘H15’ respectively.
4. The Applicants’ application for closure of the Court file pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4) is granted. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of Court proceedings.
5. Costs reserved.

Observations

  1. There has been a long correspondence between the representatives of the IP FGF and the Claimant about the risk of eventual non-participation of FGF in these proceedings – which is the Secretary of State’s challenge to a finding as to costs in SIAC. The issue is described as a “challenge to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission concluding that, following the withdrawal of an application for review pursuant to sections 2C to 2F of the SIAC Act 1997, SIAC has jurisdiction to award costs to the applicant and the Order that the SSHD pay the applicant’s reasonable costs of the review proceedings.” The issue is thus one of pure jurisdiction.
  2. The decision was in respect of FGF, and the 2 parties now joined have similar issues in a similar case awaiting this decision. It is proportionate to join them given the failed attempts to agree costs protections to FGF who is ineligible for Legal Aid and may take no part as a result: SIAC is not participating. However, it should be noted that the Court may be reluctant at a later date (should a grant of costs against the Claimant and in favour of an IP be under consideration) to include two sets of representatives in any such an award. It would in any event be proportionate for the single interest amongst the IPs to be represented by one team, it being a short point of law.