R Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Singh |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4659 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/8907/2012 |
| Date | 05 June 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 4659 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Singh
CO/8907/2012
Mr S Jegarajah (instructed by Rennaissance) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms C Rowlands (instructed by Cornerstone) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
I am going to grant permission on the grounds outlined today and in the succinct grounds for renewing this application.
Essentially, the point is whether the Secretary of State is right to submit that in a case of this kind what is needed is the stringent threshold of conspicuous unfairness, as summarised in the decision of the Court of Appeal in SH v Q 2009 EWCA Civ 324, which summarises earlier authorities of that court, and particularly in the judgment of Laws LJ at paragraphs 44 do 49, which have been helpfully cited to me by counsel for the Secretary of State. Or whether the claimant is right, as I consider at least to be arguable, that it may suffice, in a case such as this, that a failure to apply a policy, which admittedly was in force at the relevant time, and was not applied by mistake, is something which ought to have been weighed in the balance. That submission can be based, for example, on paragraph 60 in the judgment of Ward LJ in the case of SL (Vietnam) 2010 EWCA Civ 225.
It may well be that the application ultimately transpires to be unmeritorious, not least because the Secretary of State submits that the mistake was one solely attributable to the conduct of the claimant himself. Nevertheless, it would not be appropriate to me to pronounce on the merits on the underlying claim for judicial review to any more degree, because I consider the grounds to be arguable and I grant permission accordingly.
Now, Ms Jegarajah, one thing that does concern me is whether your grounds might need to be amended, because HHJ Robinson doesn't really seem to have understood the case to be put in the way that you have very succinctly put it now. Do you need time to...
To continue reading
Request your trial