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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-BHM-000272

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

6 March 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Worster

Between:

The King on the application of
ST

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 23.12, 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendants

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE WORSTER

SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

1. Anonymity:

    The Claimant is granted anonymity and is to be referred to in these proceedings by the initials ST. No one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Claimant, which is likely to lead members of the public to identify the Claimant or any member of the Claimant’s family.

    2. Jurisdiction:

    The court does not have jurisdiction to consider this claim.

    3. Costs:

    No order for costs.

    Reasons

    1) ST seeks permission to bring proceedings for Judicial Review of the Upper Tribunal’s decision of 31 October 2024 refusing permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal of 12 June 2023, by which the FTT refused ST’s appeal against the 1st Defendant’s decision to refuse ST international protection pursuant to the Refugee Convention or leave to remain on human rights grounds.

    2) The UT’s decision was made on the papers; the UT Judge deciding that it was unnecessary to have an oral hearing.

    3) The UT considered that the grounds of appeal were really no more than a reassertion of ST’s original claim and a challenge to the FTT’s findings of fact and credibility. The UT relied upon the well-established tests for permission to appeal in such circumstances.

    4) ST has joined the FTT as a Defendant, rather than the UT, but the Claim Form correctly identifies the UT’s decision as the decision challenged.

    5) By section 11A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (as amended): 

      (1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply in relation to a decision by the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission (or leave) to appeal further to an application under section 11(4)(b).

      (2) The decision is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any other court.

      (3) In particular—

      (a) the Upper Tribunal is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision;

      (b) the supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, the decision.

      (4) 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.

      6) Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this claim unless it falls within the exceptions provided by section 11A(4). It is for the Claimant to show that there is a genuinely disputable question that the exception applies; see LA Albania v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2023] EWCA Civ 1337 ; per Dingemans LJ at [37]-[38].

      7) ST sets out the grounds for this claim in the document entitled “Application for Permission and Judicial Review”. The grounds comprise a serious of allegations of errors of law by the UT, in not understanding the test on appeal, failing to take account of failures by the FTT to consider relevant matters, disagreements with findings of fact, failures to make material findings, and other criticisms of the decisions made by both the FTT and the UT. None of those matters begin to establish that this claim falls within any exceptions to section 11A(2)(3). 

      8) There are two potentially relevant matters. Firstly, paragraph 2 of the grounds is as follows:

      The Upper Tribunal erred in law by failing to take into account a relevant consideration in the exercise of its power or by exercising its discretionary power in bad faith.

      Whilst this might be read as asserting that section 11A(4)(c)(i) applied, in reality it is no more than saying that because the UT concluded as it did, it must have acted in bad faith. That is not sufficient to raise a genuine disputable issue.

      9) Secondly, paragraphs 29 and 30 of the grounds allege actual bias against the UT. This might be read as asserting that section 11A(4)(c)(ii) applied. However, the reality of the allegation is that this too is a reflection of ST’s disagreement with the findings of fact made by the FTT and the UT’s failure to give permission to challenge them on appeal. The nature of the allegation is illustrated by the contention that “the repeated drawing of extremely adverse inferences or unreasonable rejection of evidence suggests that the findings and decisions can only be explained by actual bias”.

      10) There is no genuinely disputable question that the exceptions to section 11A(2)(3) apply, and consequently this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this claim.

      11) The UT granted an anonymity order. For the avoidance of doubt a further order is made in these proceedings

      12) Neither Defendant has sought an order for costs.