F, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An adjournment in judicial review proceedings is governed by fairness, the interests of both parties and the administration of justice. Relevant considerations include the time already available, the speculative nature and relevance of proposed further evidence, delay, costs and the effect on other court users. A late attempt to transfer proceedings under CPR 54.20 will be refused where it is, in substance, an application for an adjournment or a change to a civil trial process after prolonged judicial review proceedings. Withdrawal may be permitted, but the court may record that the claimant had an opportunity to present the existing claims and chose not to do so.

The claimant challenged her detention and proposed removal to Portugal, and sought judicial review together with damages-related relief. Permission had been granted after earlier procedural stages. Following late disclosure of approximately 300 documents, the claimant sought a further adjournment to obtain additional medical evidence.

After the adjournment was refused, she sought transfer under CPR 54.20 so that the matter could proceed as a civil claim involving factual investigation and possible negligence issues. When transfer was refused, she sought permission to withdraw the claim. The issues were whether the proceedings should be adjourned or transferred, and what consequences should follow from withdrawal.

1. Adjournment refused. The court had to consider fairness and justice in the circumstances, including the interests of both parties, other litigants and the administration of justice. The proceedings had been extant for more than 14 months. The claimant had sufficient time to address the disclosed material. The proposed expert evidence was speculative, and its relevance to the issues requiring determination had not been demonstrated. An adjournment would also cause wasted costs and further prolong serious allegations concerning detention.

2. Transfer refused. The application under CPR 54.20 would effectively have obtained an adjournment by another route and would have changed the proceedings into a more fact-intensive civil claim. The claimant had never previously suggested that the matter should be treated as commenced by writ. It was therefore inappropriate to transfer the proceedings at that late stage.

3. Withdrawal permitted. Despite the refusal of an adjournment and transfer, the claimant remained able to advance the claims already raised on the available material. She chose not to do so and expressly sought withdrawal. The court permitted withdrawal, while recording that any attempt to resurrect the same matters in later proceedings would have to be considered in light of the opportunity already given to argue them.

4. Costs. In view of the claimant’s decision to withdraw, costs were awarded to the defendant, subject to the usual provisions applying to a legally assisted claimant. The claimant’s publicly funded costs were to be subject to detailed assessment.