Tariq, R (on the application of) v An Adjudicator

Where an adjudicator’s determination is unclear, the court must construe it in context and by reference to the adjudicator’s clarification. A certificate concerning an asylum appeal cannot be treated as certifying or limiting a separate human rights appeal where no human rights certificate was issued. A speculative concern that a tribunal may later act unlawfully does not justify judicial review or an out-of-time renewal of grounds. Additional grounds under CPR 54.15 require exceptional circumstances and must serve the interests of justice.

The claimant challenged an adjudicator’s determination concerning her asylum and human rights claims. Limited permission was granted to challenge the adjudicator’s apparent upholding of a certificate in relation to the human rights appeal. Permission was refused on the merits of the asylum and human rights assessment, and no renewal application was made within seven days.

The claimant later sought to add grounds under CPR 54.15, arguing that the adjudicator had misunderstood the significance of preaching within the Ahmadi faith. The court rejected that attempt. The remaining issue was whether the adjudicator had unlawfully upheld a certificate affecting the human rights appeal.

1. Additional grounds. The power under CPR 54.15 to permit additional grounds where exceptional circumstances are shown and the interests of justice require it is not ordinarily available to renew, out of time, a ground on which permission has already been refused. The proposed merits grounds merely repeated the original challenge.
2. Merits challenge. The adjudicator’s finding that the claimant had not been an active preacher or had proselytised was a broad finding of fact. It did not establish that Ahmadis were required to be active preachers, and it disclosed no arguable error of law or perversity.
3. Certification. The adjudicator’s clarification showed that the Home Office had issued only one certificate under paragraph 9(3)(b) of Schedule 4 and that paragraph 9(7) did not apply. The reference to certificates in the plural was unclear but did not create a certificate in respect of the human rights appeal.
4. Since there was no human rights certificate, the claimant retained a right of appeal to the Tribunal on that issue. Judicial review was therefore granted in the declaratory sense that the true position was clarified. No further relief was necessary.
5. Wasted costs. The court directed the claimant’s legal representatives to show cause under CPR 48 why a wasted costs order should not be made, including by explaining the conduct of the proceedings and the communication of relevant correspondence to the Legal Services Commission.

High Court (Administrative Court): A deputy High Court judge granted limited permission on the certification issue and refused permission on the merits. The Administrative Court granted declaratory judicial review on the certification issue, refused the proposed additional merits grounds, and directed a wasted costs response.