Ararso v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 845 (24 April 2018)

Ararso v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 845 (24 April 2018)

The Secretary of State's failure to expressly reference the consent order undertaking was not a material omission; even if it had been considered, it would not have changed the decision to detain. The detention was lawful throughout. The appeal is allowed, the declaration of unlawful detention is set aside, and the claim for damages is dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 845
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Gadisa Ararso; Appellant/defendant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Detention, Judicial Review, Dublin II Regulation, Consent Orders, Costs in Litigation
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Unlawful Detention Judicial Review Dublin II Regulation Consent Orders Costs in Litigation

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gadisa Ararso

Respondent/claimant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention of Gadisa Ararso between 16 September 2014 and 7 November 2014 was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to take into account a material consideration (the consent order undertaking) when detaining GA
  3. 3 Whether damages for wrongful detention are payable

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's failure to expressly reference the consent order undertaking was not a material omission; even if it had been considered, it would not have changed the decision to detain. The detention was lawful throughout. The appeal is allowed, the declaration of unlawful detention is set aside, and the claim for damages is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside the declaration that detention between 16 September 2014 and 7 November 2014 was unlawful.
  • Dismiss the claim for damages for wrongful detention.