AA, R (on the application of) v Sodexo Ltd & Anor

AA, R (on the application of) v Sodexo Ltd & Anor

The claim is academic as all impugned decisions have been withdrawn and there is no longer a decision affecting AA's rights. However, there are exceptional circumstances due to confusion and inconsistency in the application of the law to young and vulnerable prisoners, and the issue affects a significant number of similar cases. Therefore, it is in the public interest for the claim to continue against the SSHD, but not against Sodexo as the claim against it is fact-sensitive and does not meet the criteria for academic determination.

Parties
Claimant: AA; First Defendant: Sodexo Ltd; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Case Management Hearing on Whether Claim Is Academic and Should Proceed
Outcome
Claim to continue against SSHD; claim stayed against Sodexo
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Home Detention Curfew, Deportation, Modern Slavery, Prisoner Rights, Children and Vulnerable Prisoners
Public Law Prison Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Home Detention Curfew Deportation Modern Slavery Prisoner 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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AA

Claimant

Sodexo Ltd

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Case Management Hearing on Whether Claim Is Academic and Should Proceed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is academic following withdrawal of impugned decisions
  2. 2 Whether there are good reasons in the public interest for the claim to continue despite being academic
  3. 3 Whether a stage 1 deportation decision constitutes 'a decision to make a deportation order' under s.259(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is academic as all impugned decisions have been withdrawn and there is no longer a decision affecting AA's rights. However, there are exceptional circumstances due to confusion and inconsistency in the application of the law to young and vulnerable prisoners, and the issue affects a significant number of similar cases. Therefore, it is in the public interest for the claim to continue against the SSHD, but not against Sodexo as the claim against it is fact-sensitive and does not meet the criteria for academic determination.

Court Disposition

Claim to continue against SSHD; claim stayed against Sodexo

Orders

  • Expedited substantive hearing converted to case management hearing
  • Claim against SSHD to continue; SSHD to submit Detailed Grounds of Defence and evidence