- BY CJ McKinney
Home Office loses out on costs over “clear and inexcusable” litigation delay
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
A challenge to the lawfulness of immigration detention in R (Shote) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 87 (Admin), decided today, was unsuccessful. But Michael Fordham QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, declined to make a costs order against the claimant:
My reason for depriving the Secretary of State of the costs order that would normally follow the event is that this is the course of action which is available and appropriate to mark the Court’s disapproval of the clear and inexcusable default (§4 above) in filing her detained grounds and evidence within the time-frame required by the rules and the directions of the Court.
Earlier, the Blackstone Chambers silk had pointed out that “the detailed grounds and evidence of the Secretary of State were due on 6 July 2017, but these were not filed until 31 October 2017, after the claimant’s skeleton argument. No good reason for this has been put forward”.
Small comfort for Ms Shote, whose judicial review claim was dismissed on all five grounds.
SHARE
