R (Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE STADLEN |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 1424 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 05 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | CO/7970/2009 |
[2010] EWHC 1424 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Mr Justice Stadlen
CO/7970/2009
Mr A Malik appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr David Blundell appeared on behalf of the Defendant
: This is a renewed application for permission for judicial review. It came in front of Mr Justice Collins. It raises a very short point.
The claimant, in support of her application for permission to remain, was required under the relevant immigration rule to satisfy the Secretary of State that she had a certain amount of money available to her at the date of her application. She had two bank accounts, but only sent the bank statement of one of them which showed that she had less than the amount of money she needed to show. In fact - and it is not challenged by the Secretary of State - on the relevant day she had in her second bank account sufficient money, when added together with the bank account that she did show to the Secretary of State, to satisfy the requirement under the relevant provisions so that she was eligible for the necessary points to justify permission to remain. But for whatever reason, no doubt oversight, she did not send the relevant second bank statement to the Secretary of State who - she not having satisfied the condition that she had sufficient funds - refused to give her permission to remain.
When the matter came before Mr Justice Collins he took a very dim view of the Secretary of State resisting the application. He said:
“It is clear the claimant did qualify ….. It seems she may have failed to include the Abbey National details. It is, I suppose, possible that the decision was justified in law but I would have thought that good administration would have recognised that rather than leave matters where they were and expend money in producing an acknowledgement of service, the defendant would have agreed to accept the validity of the application. As it is, the acknowledgement of service is out of time, as is so often the case, and in the circumstances I am disinclined to allow an extension. But to save further costs, I shall give the defendant 21 days to decide whether to accept that the application originally made should be granted. If he maintains his present attitude I shall require an oral hearing to decide on permission.”
The Secretary of State did maintain his present attitude; as a result we are here today.
I asked Mr Blundell whether what lay behind the Secretary of State's decision was not that he did not recognise the force of Mr Justice Collins' point on the facts but rather that he was concerned not to concede what he regarded as an important point of principle, namely that where a decision is challenged on the basis of it being Wednesbury unreasonable the Secretary of State is entitled to insist that the court considers the matter by reference to the evidence available to the decision taker at the time of the decision and that it is not an answer to a lawful decision for a claimant to point...
To continue reading
Request your trial