HE v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1846 (20 November 2013)

HE v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1846 (20 November 2013)

The claimant was the successful party in securing his release from detention, which was the primary relief sought. The judge at first instance erred in principle by failing to characterise the claimant as the successful party and by not awarding costs accordingly. The proper order is that the claimant should recover 80% of his costs in the court below, reflecting his substantial success up to the point of release.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1846
Parties
Claimant/appellant: HE; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Unlawful Detention, Judicial Review, Deportation
Immigration Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Unlawful Detention Judicial Review Deportation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HE

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was the successful party for the purpose of costs in judicial review proceedings challenging immigration detention
  2. 2 Whether the first instance judge erred in principle in awarding only a small proportion of costs to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was the successful party in securing his release from detention, which was the primary relief sought. The judge at first instance erred in principle by failing to characterise the claimant as the successful party and by not awarding costs accordingly. The proper order is that the claimant should recover 80% of his costs in the court below, reflecting his substantial success up to the point of release.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for costs at first instance set aside
  • Claimant to recover 80% of his costs in the court below