Interim relief and urgent applications and the post permission stage

Similar documents
HOW TO MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT A BETTER PLACE: SOME PROCEDURAL SUGGESTIONS. Michael Fordham Blackstone Chambers

Issues for Parish Councils in High Court challenges

ALBA SEMINAR 5 JUNE 2013 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

COSTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW. Richard Turney

Guidance on Conducting Litigation

PERMISSION PRINCIPLES

Time limits and service in judicial review and statutory challenges

PRACTICE STATEMENT FRESH CLAIM JUDICIAL REVIEWS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ON OR AFTER 29 APRIL 2013

JUDGMENT. R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

ADGM COURTS PRACTICE DIRECTION 5 CASE MANAGEMENT AND PAPERS FOR TRIAL

Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PETER LANE.

Coroners and Problems Around Disclosure of Documents

Contempt after Summers v Fairclough. David Melville QC Sadie Crapper

Planning Court Procedure and Costs Capping Orders

BC LEGAL. An Express Guide to Time Limits Under the Civil Procedure Rules Current as of 1st July 2015

COSTS UPDATE. Kirsten Sjøvoll

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) McCloskey J and UT Judge Lindsley.

PLANNING APPEALS: HIGH COURT CHALLENGES. Stephen Morgan Landmark Chambers

Before: MR JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART Between:

Practice Guidance Case Management and Mediation of International Child Abduction Proceedings 1. Introduction

ORDINARY RESIDENCE & THE CARE ACT 2014

BRIEFING NOTE 1. Medical Justice & Ors v SSHD, EHRC intervening [2017] 2461 (Admin)

Peter John Reynolds. -and- Greg De Hoedt. Skeleton argument resisting the set-aside of Default Judgment

Victoria House 7 October 2016 Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB. Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROTH (President)

Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [2008] APP.L.R. 03/14

Frank Cowl & Ors v Plymouth City Council

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

Recent developments in environmental and agricultural law. UKAEL Conference, September 2011: EU LAW AND THE LAND. Gwion Lewis

LIMITATION running the defence

Restraining dismissal & Restraint of Trade Recent developments & The practicalities of litigation

Witness Preparation. Introduction

LENGTH OF ARBITRATION AND FAST TRACK PROCEDURES

The Planning Court comes into being. Richard Harwood OBE QC

Cltp6229 DEVELOPMENTS IN JR PROCEDURE. Notes prepared by Gordon Nardell, 39 Essex Street

JR costs protection: the Aarhus Convention and PCOs. Luke Wilcox, Landmark Chambers

Before: LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW QC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court Between:

How to get legal aid for discrimination advice (2)

Before: NEIL CAMERON QC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. Between:

Permission for committal application Public interest threshold requirements (JTR v NTL)

Suggested Model Directions for Clinical Negligence cases before Master Ungley and Master Yoxall

The learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest.

SWALA - 1 st March Planning law topic. Housing land supply: how far can you go in the Administrative Court?

THE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act

COSTS IN THE FIRST-TIER AND UPPER TRIBUNALS: DOES THE REGIME PROMOTE ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

TYPES OF MOTIONS Jennifer Griffiths and Marni Miller

UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER. GUIDANCE NOTE 2011 No 1: Permission to appeal to UTIAC (amended September 2013 & July 2014)

The learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest.

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CRANSTON UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS. Between THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF RA.

Model Report for Experts

Case No. CO/ 4943/2014. BLUE GREEN LONDON PLAN Claimant THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EIA CASE LAW UPDATE. Andrew Byass

Freedom of Information and Closed Proceedings: The Unavoidable Irony

6. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST A JUDICIAL REVIEW ********************

Before: THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF GUDANAVICIENE) - and - IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL

The learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest.

Before : MR JUSTICE LEGGATT Between : LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES. - and

Before : DAVID CASEMENT QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Between :

CPR 35 CONSULTATION PAPER

INFORMATION BULLETIN

Manjit S Gill QC Public Law

Judicial Review and Pre-permission Costs Karen Ashton and Anne McMurdie Public Law Solicitors The Public Law and Judicial Review North Conference 2014

Practice Direction 27A Family Proceedings: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be applied in All Courts other than the Family Proceedings Court)

A White Book Service

DEFENCES TO ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS AND AWARDS IN ENGLAND

IMMIGRATION DETENTION OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION GUIDE GRAND COURT CAYMAN ISLANDS SECOND EDITION

PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS

UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2012

PREFERENCE FOR A REFERENCE? Owain Thomas

R (Mayaya) v SSHD, C4/2011/3273, on appeal from [2011] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2012] 1 All ER 1491

In the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

CHARGING ORDERS INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURE. Tom Morris

Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY MISS EASHA MAGON. and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC

Lokombe (DRC: FNOs Airport monitoring) [2015] UKUT 00627(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Neighbourhood Planning

SECTIONS 8 AND 11 OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORMS UPDATE

Undertakings Ben Handy, Barrister, St John s Chambers

Martin Westgate QC. Call: 1985 Silk:

1. I am authorised by the President to release this statement.

Before : PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION LADY JUSTICE SMITH and LORD JUSTICE AIKENS Between :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and. THE PHYSICAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Respondent

LOWIN. and W PORTSMOUTH & CO. JUDGMENT (As Approved)

THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR TO THE SENIOR COURTS: APPOINTMENT IN FAMILY PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INHERENT JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO ADULTS

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER RULE K OF THE RULES OF THE BEFORE MR. CHARLES FLINT Q.C. SITTING AS A JOINTLY APPOINTED SOLE

SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:

ABA INTERNATIONAL DISCOVERY BOOK

BPTC syllabus and curriculum 2017/18

Appeals by the GMC pursuant to s.40a of the Medical Act 1983 ( s.40a appeals ) Guidance for Decision-makers

Guidance note: Instructing experts in applications for a financial order

B e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE FLOYD EUROPEAN HERITAGE LIMITED

Cuthbert v Gair (t/a The Bowes Manor Equestrian Centre) [2008] APP.L.R. 09/03

The relationship between best interests decisions and the rational use of resources by local authorities and NHS bodies.

SEMINAR 1. Introduction to Civil and Commercial Mediation. Program Leader Corbett Haselgrove-Spurin. An NMA program on behalf of NADR UK Ltd.

Injunction Applications in complex cases. Recent cases and some points to think about

Robert Harland. Overview. Areas of expertise. Clinical Negligence. Memberships. Clinical Negligence Cases. Year of call: 2006

YA v CENTRAL and NORTH WEST LONDON NHS TRUST and Others. For the Appellant: Roger Pezzani instructed by Guile Nicholas Solicitors

LAW SHEET No.5 THE DISCRETION OF THE CORONER

DEFENCE AND/OR COUNTERCLAIM

Mungo Wenban-Smith. Practice Areas. Year called 2004

Transcription:

Interim relief and urgent applications and the post permission stage Hannah Gibbs Summary - JR litigation takes time - Interim relief ensures that a claim is not rendered academic by the passage of time. 1

Types of interim relief Injunction (CPR 25.1.1(a)): a court order prohibiting a person from doing something or requiring them to do something. Stay of proceedings (CPR 54.10(2)): a halt to ongoing or even concluded proceedings. See: R (H) v. Ashworth Hospital Authority [2003] 1 WLR 127) Interim Declaration (CPR 25.1(1)(b)) A contradiction in terms? Examples Challenge to decision of SSHD to remove someone from the United Kingdom Challenge to decision of Mental Health Review Tribunal to release a detainee Challenge to decision of local planning authority to grant permission for demolition of a building Challenge to a local authority s decision to treat a person as an adult when he claims to be a child 2

Preventing immigration removal? Injunction Preventing implementation of a planning decision? Injunction (R (SAVE Britain s Heritage v SSCLG [2010] EWHC 979 (Admin)) Preventing implementation of a tribunal ruling? Stay (R (H) v. Ashworth Hospital Authority [2003] 1 WLR 127) Want someone to be treated as a particular class of person for the purposes of legislation? Declaration R (H) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2412 (Admin) Approach to injunctions? M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 American Cyanamid test, but modified for the public law context (R v MAAF, ex p. Monsanto [1999] Q.B. 1161) Strong presumption against interim relief in public law matters? strong prima facie case? However, many examples of where interim relief will be granted, particularly where failure to do so would render claim academic, or where human rights engaged. 3

Approach to injunctions? Court will be reluctant to grant any form of interim relief without establishing the defendant s response to the application - may abridge time for service of the Acknowledgement of Service or call matter in for a hearing on short notice. If merits of the underlying claim are unclear and there is no particular urgency in granting relief, Court will give directions for an expedited (speedy) determination of permission rolled up substantive hearing. When does the application need to be considered? Ordinarily make the application will be considered with the application for permission. N461, section 7 ; T480, section 6 Highlight in introduction to statement of facts and grounds and in prayer. Attach draft interim order. Particular rules for removals cases see CPR PD 54A Para 18. Generally fall within jurisdiction of UTIAC. But what about when urgent? Permission is not normally considered within 6 weeks of issue 4

Urgent cases Practice Statement (Administrative Court: Listing and Urgent Cases) [2002] 1 WLR 810 See also (more generally) The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2016 N463 / T483 Should the application be for urgent consideration of permission (abridgment of time), or interim relief until permission? Urgent cases Make sure the case is urgent and has merit. Urgency does not reduce the need for careful appraisal of the strength of the claim, or the need to provide appropriate evidence in support of the claim. R (Butt) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 264 (Admin). The absence of proper preparation and consideration of urgent applications will lead the court to refer sols firms to the SRA and to award costs against sols firms personally. 5

Out of hours applications? Need for caution even more acute: see R (Q) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 2507 (Admin). Morris Kay J. truly exceptional cases Application by telephone. Documents can be faxed, including a summary of the facts, the need for urgency, and a draft order. Duty of full and frank disclosure. Draft Order The Post-Permission Stage 6

Progression of the claim post-permission Claimant: Will already have filed detailed grounds and supporting evidence CPR r.54.15: court s permission is required if claimant seeks to rely on grounds other than those for which she/he has been given permission Defendant / Interested Parties Will have filed only summary grounds of resistance CPR r.54.14: defendant and any other person served with the claim form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds must file and serve (1) detailed grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds; and (2) any written evidence, within 35 days after service of the order granting permission Scope for a Reply Disclosure and duty of candour Disclosure is not required in judicial review unless the court orders otherwise: PD 54A para. 12 The duty of candour will, however, apply throughout the judicial review proceedings: Requires defendants to set out fully what they did and why, so far as is necessary, fully and fairly to meet the challenge... (R v Lancashire CC, ex p Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941 (CA) per Parker LJ at 946) Requires telling the whole truth, not just those aspects which [suit] the Department s case (R (Wandsworth LBC) v Secretary of State for Transport [2005] EWHC 20 (Admin) at [250] 7

Disclosure and duty of candour (cont.) Temporal scope of the duty: a continuing duty Treasury Solicitor: Guidance on Discharging the Duty of Candour and Disclosure in Judicial Review Proceedings (January 2010). See also Discussion Paper for consultation by Cranston J and Lewis J on duty of candour (April 2016) Position in respect of claimants: bilateral duty R (on the application of Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 416 Skeleton arguments Claimant must file and serve a skeleton argument not less than 21 working days before the hearing: PD 54A para. 15.1 Defendant and any other party wishing to make representations at the hearing must file and serve a skeleton argument not less than 14 working days before the hearing: PD 54A para. 15.2. Skeleton arguments must include (PD 54A para. 15.3): a time estimate for the hearing (including delivery of judgment) list of issues list of legal points to be taken (together with any relevant authorities with page references to the passages relied upon) a chronology of events with page references to the bundle list of essential reading (including page references and a time estimate) a list of persons referred to 8

Trial bundles The claimant must file a paginated and indexed bundle of all the relevant documents when filing their skeleton argument: PD 54A para. 16.1 Must include all those documents required by the claimant, the defendant and any other party wishing to make representations at the hearing: PD 54A para. 16.2 Usually includes the order granting permission, the claim form, the claimant's written evidence and documents, the defendant's AoS and detailed grounds of resistance, written evidence and documents and any interested party's AoS, detailed grounds of resistance and written evidence and documents Bundle of authorities The hearing Usually be before a single judge in open court; A supervisory jurisdiction (ensuring that the decision-maker acted lawfully on the facts as found) not a re-hearing of the contested decision; Presenting oral evidence at the hearing or cross examining a witness requires the court's permission. Will only rarely be appropriate e.g. where crucial issues of fact need to be determined in order to resolve the case: R. (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin) at [18]-[19] Role of Interested Parties Judgment often reserved 9