Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Indemnity costs awarded for breach of consent order


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


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

Latest from the Upper Tribunal on costs in judicial review proceedings:

1. Whilst no mention of the basis of costs assessment is made in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the distinction drawn between the standard and indemnity bases by CPR 44.3(1) can properly inform the exercise of discretion by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal when exercising its full power to determine the extent costs are to be paid under section 29 of the 2007 Act. 

2. The distinction between the standard and indemnity bases are well-known and well-understood across the civil justice system and applied in judicial review proceedings that take place in the High Court and beyond. There is no reason not to employ it in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.

In this case, the tribunal used its discretion to award indemnity costs against the Home Office after it breached a consent order promising to return the applicant’s passport within seven days.

The failure by the Executive to comply with the agreed time frame resulted in the applicant being required to initiate further judicial review proceedings. Such conduct takes this case out of the norm, and we find in the circumstances that the applicant should be awarded his costs in these proceedings on an indemnity basis.

The case is R (Butt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Indemnity costs) [2022] UKUT 69 (IAC)

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Free Movement

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.