Morita & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 758 (Admin) (27 March 2019

Morita & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 758 (Admin) (27 March 2019

The claims are out of time as they challenge the vires of the pay regime itself, not individual decisions, and the regime was established years before the claims. Even if considered on the merits, the fixed pay rate is not contrary to the statutory purpose, does not unlawfully fetter discretion, is not irrational, is not unlawfully discriminatory, and there was no breach of the public sector equality duty or legitimate expectation. The Secretary of State's decision is within the range of reasonable responses and is lawful.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 758 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Babu Morita; Claimant/applicant: Shola Badmus; Claimant/applicant: GW; Claimant/applicant: Okwudili Chinze; Claimant/applicant: Granville Millington; Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; permission refused and substantive claims fail.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Immigration Detention, Paid Activity in Detention, Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998, Discrimination, Legitimate Expectation
Public Law Immigration Law Human Rights Judicial Review Immigration Detention Paid Activity in Detention Equality Act 2010 Human Rights Act 1998 +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babu Morita

Claimant/applicant

Shola Badmus

Claimant/applicant

GW

Claimant/applicant

Okwudili Chinze

Claimant/applicant

Granville Millington

Claimant/applicant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fixed rate of pay for detainees' paid activity in immigration removal centres is unlawful under the statutory regime
  2. 2 Whether the pay regime unlawfully fetters discretion
  3. 3 Whether the pay regime is irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are out of time as they challenge the vires of the pay regime itself, not individual decisions, and the regime was established years before the claims. Even if considered on the merits, the fixed pay rate is not contrary to the statutory purpose, does not unlawfully fetter discretion, is not irrational, is not unlawfully discriminatory, and there was no breach of the public sector equality duty or legitimate expectation. The Secretary of State's decision is within the range of reasonable responses and is lawful.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; permission refused and substantive claims fail.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Claims dismissed on the merits.