Vousden, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

A judicial review application should not ordinarily proceed where the claimant has lost any personal interest in the dispute. The court may decline to grant a declaration on an unresolved jurisdictional question where competing views remain and the declaration would have practical consequences that the court cannot appropriately address. The application may therefore be dismissed, while leaving the relevant tribunal to consider the jurisdictional issue if it arises in a future case.

The claimant challenged the Chief Adjudicator’s refusal to accept jurisdiction over an intended immigration appeal. The issue concerned whether jurisdiction existed under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, notwithstanding that the respondent had not yet forwarded the appeal bundle required by the applicable procedure rules.

After the judicial review claim was lodged, the Secretary of State granted the claimant indefinite leave to remain under rule 257 of the Immigration Rules. The claimant consequently had no further personal interest in the proceedings. The court considered whether it should nevertheless determine the jurisdictional issue or make a declaration.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed because, following the grant of indefinite leave to remain, the claimant had no further personal interest in the proceedings.

2. It was inappropriate to make a declaration that the Immigration Appellate Authority had jurisdiction. Others might take the view that no jurisdiction existed, and a declaration would give rise to practical consequences which the court could not address in the present proceedings.

3. The court left the jurisdictional question for consideration by the Chief Adjudicator if it arose again in another case. If jurisdiction were found, the Chief Adjudicator was invited to provide guidance on how it should be exercised, having regard to the practical difficulties identified in the witness evidence.

4. The application had been properly brought, but the appropriate order was no order as to costs. The claimant was permitted to obtain a detailed assessment of publicly funded costs.