Morita & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1)

Morita & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1)

The claim is out of time as it is, in substance, a challenge to the vires of the Detention Services Order 01/2013, not to a fresh decision. None of the grounds advanced are arguable: the pay regime is not contrary to the statutory purpose, does not unlawfully fetter discretion, is not irrational, is objectively justified, and the Secretary of State complied with the Equality Act 2010 duty. No legitimate expectation arose.

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
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for permission to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Immigration Detention, Paid Activity in Detention, Equality Act 2010, European Convention on Human Rights, Legitimate Expectation
Public Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Immigration Detention Paid Activity in Detention Equality Act 2010 European Convention on Human Rights +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fixing of a flat rate of £1 per hour for paid activity in immigration removal centres is unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the pay regime is contrary to the statutory purpose of the Detention Centre Rules 2001
  3. 3 Whether the pay regime is an unlawful fetter on discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is out of time as it is, in substance, a challenge to the vires of the Detention Services Order 01/2013, not to a fresh decision. None of the grounds advanced are arguable: the pay regime is not contrary to the statutory purpose, does not unlawfully fetter discretion, is not irrational, is objectively justified, and the Secretary of State complied with the Equality Act 2010 duty. No legitimate expectation arose.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review in respect of the Badmus Claim is refused as out of time and unarguable
  • No extension of time granted