RA & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2026] EWCA Civ 3 (08 January 2026)

RA & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2026] EWCA Civ 3 (08 January 2026)

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to make general directions binding in other or future cases not before it, and to make mandatory orders requiring ministers to amend and operate policy, as this exceeded judicial powers and breached the separation of powers. The process was also procedurally unfair due to lack of notice and opportunity to address the orders.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 3
Parties
Respondents/claimants: THE KING (on the application of RA and AA); Appellant/defendant: SECRETary OF STATE FOR FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS; Respondent/claimant: THE KING (on the application of MZZ); Appellant/defendant: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE; Appellant/defendant: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT; Advocate to the Court: Emma Sutton KC (Advocate to the Court)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Separation of Powers, Court Jurisdiction, Case Management, Mandatory Orders, Policy Implementation, Closed Material Procedures
Public Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Separation of Powers Court Jurisdiction Case Management Mandatory Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE KING (on the application of RA and AA)

Respondents/claimants

SECRETary OF STATE FOR FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS

Appellant/defendant

THE KING (on the application of MZZ)

Respondent/claimant

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE

Appellant/defendant

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant/defendant

Emma Sutton KC (Advocate to the Court)

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make general directions affecting other cases and future cases not before it
  2. 2 Whether the High Court could make mandatory orders requiring ministers to amend and operate government policy
  3. 3 Whether the orders breached the constitutional separation of powers between judiciary and executive

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to make general directions binding in other or future cases not before it, and to make mandatory orders requiring ministers to amend and operate policy, as this exceeded judicial powers and breached the separation of powers. The process was also procedurally unfair due to lack of notice and opportunity to address the orders.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Orders

  • General directions in 'MZZ' and 'RA and AA' set aside.
  • Mandatory order in 'In the matter of the Secretary of State for Defence' set aside.