CX1 & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2023] EWHC 284 (Admin) (13 February 2023)

CX1 & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2023] EWHC 284 (Admin) (13 February 2023)

The ARAP refusals were unlawful because the decision-maker misinterpreted the policy by treating BBC employment as automatically excluding eligibility under category 4, failing to consider whether claimants worked alongside or closely supported a UK government department. The LOTR policy was also unlawful insofar as it required applicants to use forms that could not be reasonably completed without providing false information, frustrating the statutory discretion under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 284 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: CX1, CX2, CX3, CX4, CX5, CX6, CX7, CX8; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Defence; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claimants' judicial review allowed in part
Legal Topics
Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (arap), Leave Outside the Rules (lotr), Procedural Fairness, Policy Interpretation, Duty to Give Reasons
Immigration Law Administrative Law Public Law Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (arap) Leave Outside the Rules (lotr) Procedural Fairness Policy Interpretation Duty to Give Reasons

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CX1, CX2, CX3, CX4, CX5, CX6, CX7, CX8

Claimants

Secretary of State for Defence

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ARAP decisions failed to give adequate reasons and were thus unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the ARAP policy was misinterpreted to exclude BBC journalists from eligibility
  3. 3 Whether the LOTR policy unlawfully required use of forms that could not be reasonably completed

Ratio Decidendi

The ARAP refusals were unlawful because the decision-maker misinterpreted the policy by treating BBC employment as automatically excluding eligibility under category 4, failing to consider whether claimants worked alongside or closely supported a UK government department. The LOTR policy was also unlawful insofar as it required applicants to use forms that could not be reasonably completed without providing false information, frustrating the statutory discretion under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

Court Disposition

Claimants' judicial review allowed in part

Orders

  • ARAP decisions quashed for misinterpretation of policy; to be reconsidered according to correct interpretation.
  • LOTR policy declared unlawful to the extent it requires use of forms that cannot be reasonably completed by applicants in claimants' position.