[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Abdullah, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4549 (Admin) (03 December 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4549.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4549 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		3 December 2014

1. MR JUSTICE SINGH: This case has been called on for hearing at 10.30 in the normal way. I am satisfied that notification has been served of today's hearing on the claimant insofar as he is any longer contactable. He was until last Friday, 28 November, represented by solicitors who withdrew in the absence of having received instructions by the deadline they had set him; by the end of business on Friday. I understand that those solicitors did notify himof today's hearing at a time when they were still instructed.
2. I am also informed by counsel for the Secretary of State that the claimant is on temporary admission and as is normal has to comply with a number of conditions attached to such admission. One of those conditions requires him to report regularly to the immigration authorities. I am informed that he has not done so in the recent past and on 20 October was declared to be an absconder. In those circumstances I consider it just and appropriate to proceed with the hearing even though the claimant is absent and is not represented.
3. I have been assisted for the purposes of this hearing by a helpful note filed on behalf of the Secretary of State yesterday. The background to the case is that this is one of a number involving return of asylum claimants to Italy under what is usually referred to as Dublin II. Those cases were stayed pending the delivery of the judgment of this court in the case of Tabrizagh CO/585/2013.
4. As it happens on the very same day that the stay was granted, 11 June 2014, judgment in that case was handed down by Elisabeth Laing J. She concluded that she had no hesitation in stating that on the basis of the material very recently considered by the Secretary of State and by herself the claims would be bound to fail in the First Tier Tribunal. Accordingly the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to certify such claims.
5. In spite of that, at a time when he was still legally represented this claimant sought to amend his grounds and in substance took issue with the findings of this court in Tabrizagh. On 17 September 2014 the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in the case of Tabrizagh.
6. When permission was granted by HHJ Simon Barker QC sitting as a judge of this court, as usual a number of directions were made as to the preparation for the substantive hearing of this claim for judicial review. I am satisfied that the claimant has failed to comply with the order of the court, for example that he file further evidence, a trial bundle and a skeleton argument. I accept the defendant's submission that it is not in the interests of justice for this case to be allowed to continue; to the contrary, in my judgment justice requires that there should be finality to this litigation. In any event I am satisfied that in the light of the judgment of Elizabeth Laing J in Tabrizagh and in the light of the fact that the Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal in this case, this claim too would be bound to fail.
7. In those circumstances this claim for judicial review is dismissed.
8. MR HARLAND: Thank you, my Lord. There is a statement of costs which hopefully was sent over to your Lordship yesterday.
9. MR JUSTICE SINGH: It was, thank you. Does that include the costs of today?
10. MR HARLAND: It does, my Lord, yes.
11. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Right. So what is the total you are asking for?
12. MR HARLAND: That is the total we are asking for. My Lord, there is a case called Tesfay which was decided by Collins J on 10 November 2014. I raise it solely to distinguish it, but I think I ought to raise it.
13. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Yes, very well.
14. MR HARLAND: Can I hand up a copy?
15. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Yes, very well.
16. MR HARLAND: My Lord, this was a decision on costs in similar cases but not identical cases.
17. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Yes.
18. MR HARLAND: Three cases; Tesfay, Rahma, Tayyara. Your Lordship will see from paragraph 9 of the judgment the chronology behind these cases, which is that following the Supreme Court decision in EM in November of last year, the Secretary of State had decided to withdrew a large number of decisions, reissue them following that judgment and then those claims were stayed pending Tabrizagh and so forth. The decision in this case was that because the claimants had been partially successful in that they had achieved a reconsideration and they had lodged claims for judicial review to stay removal on that basis, that they were entitled, and the conclusion is I think at paragraphs 25 and 26 onwards, they were entitled to the costs of lodging the claims and then the correct order was no order for costs thereafter.
19. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Mmm-hmm.
20. MR HARLAND: My Lord, that is a relevant judgment for cases such as the Tesfay cases.
21. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Yes.
22. MR HARLAND: We say it doesn't apply here because there has been no reconsideration. This is a claim which was brought in 2014, long after EM. The decision was taken. The challenge came in relation to it but we say that the claimant has been wrong to bring the challenge. That has been shown by Tabrizagh and the Court of Appeal and by the judgment today and costs should simply follow the event and we say that the costs that we have put forward are reasonable.
23. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Thank you very much. Well I agree with your submissions.
24. Counsel for the defendant has very fairly drawn my attention to the decision of Collins J in Tesfay [2014] EWHC 4048 (Admin). However, I am satisfied for the reasons that he gives that that case is distinguishable. In particular in that case the claimants had been partially successful. Costs decision are inevitably highly fact sensitive. In the circumstances of the present case I can see no reason why the normal principle should not apply, namely that costs follow the event. This case was brought after the decision of the Supreme Court in EM (Eritrea). In the light of the decision that I have already given, following that of Elizabeth Laing J in Tabrizagh, the case fails. Accordingly the Secretary of State will be entitled to her costs.
25. I summarily assess those costs in accordance with the draft schedule which has been placed before the court which I regard as reasonable and proportionate for cases of this type. That leads to a costs order against the claimant in the sum of £3,030, inclusive of VAT.
26. Anything else?
27. MR HARLAND: No, my Lord.
28. MR JUSTICE SINGH: Thank you very much for your assistance, Mr Harland.