SB (Afghanistan), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

SB (Afghanistan), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The orders for injunctive relief were set aside because they were granted on the basis of a fundamental misrepresentation of fact by the applicant's legal representatives, made without proper foundation and without adequate notice to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was not afforded a viable opportunity to consider the late representations before removal. The obligations under section 77 and para. 353A are not strict and require reasonable opportunity for consideration. There was no breach of court orders as the orders were not received in time to prevent removal. The duty of candour and notice to the opposing party are paramount in urgent applications for relief.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: The Queen on the Application of SB (Afghanistan); Respondent/appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (immigration/asylum) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; injunctive relief set aside; further directions on committal application to be determined after written submissions.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctive Relief, Judicial Review Procedure, Duty of Candour, Removal of Asylum Seekers, Fresh Claims Under Immigration Rules, Contempt of Court
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Interim Injunctive Relief Judicial Review Procedure Duty of Candour Removal of Asylum Seekers Fresh Claims Under Immigration Rules +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of SB (Afghanistan)

Applicant/respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (immigration/asylum) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether urgent interlocutory injunctions preventing removal of an asylum-seeker were properly granted
  2. 2 Whether last-minute representations amount to a 'fresh claim' under Immigration Rules para. 353
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State was in breach of court orders regarding removal and return of the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The orders for injunctive relief were set aside because they were granted on the basis of a fundamental misrepresentation of fact by the applicant's legal representatives, made without proper foundation and without adequate notice to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was not afforded a viable opportunity to consider the late representations before removal. The obligations under section 77 and para. 353A are not strict and require reasonable opportunity for consideration. There was no breach of court orders as the orders were not received in time to prevent removal. The duty of candour and notice to the opposing party are paramount in urgent applications for relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; injunctive relief set aside; further directions on committal application to be determined after written submissions.

Orders

  • Orders of Morris J, Jay J, and Lang J granting injunctive relief set aside.
  • Written submissions invited from both parties on whether the committal application should proceed, limited to five pages.