Uddin & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Rev 1

A specialist tribunal’s listing policy is not irrational merely because it delays listing until the respondent’s bundle is lodged or the period for lodging it has expired. The tribunal may adopt a policy suited to the litigation it handles, having regard to workload, the likelihood of effective hearings, possible withdrawal or narrowing of appeals, and competing priorities. There is no universal rule requiring immediate listing. A 19-week period allowed to entry clearance officers to lodge respondent’s bundles was not shown to be irrational or unlawful, although reconsideration of the standard directions was encouraged.

Two British sponsors sought judicial review of listing decisions by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal concerning appeals against entry clearance refusals. In one case the appeal was listed only after the respondent’s bundle had been lodged; in the other, listing had not yet occurred because the period for lodging the bundle had not expired.

The claimants challenged both the policy of waiting to list until receipt or expiry of the respondent’s submission period and the 19-week period allowed in settlement appeals for lodging the bundle. The central issues were whether either practice was irrational or otherwise unlawful.

1. Listing policy. The claims for judicial review were dismissed. It was rational and lawful for the AIT to wait until the entry clearance officer had lodged the respondent’s bundle, or until the time for doing so had expired, before listing the appeal. The policy could reduce ineffective hearings and adjournments because an entry clearance officer might review the refusal, grant entry clearance, or narrow the issues.
2. The AIT was a specialist tribunal with substantial experience and responsibility for managing a very large caseload. It had to balance competing demands, including the priority given to asylum appeals. The question when to list substantive hearings admitted different reasonable approaches, and there was no universal answer.
3. Submission period. The allowance of 19 weeks for lodging respondent’s bundles in settlement appeals was not so favourable to one party, or so harsh to the other, as to be irrational or unlawful. The period reflected logistical difficulties at overseas entry clearance posts and the structure of the arrangements made under the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005, particularly rule 55 and directions under rule 13(2)(a).
4. The court nevertheless expressed the hope that the AIT would reconsider its standard directions in light of the evidence and submissions. The AIT was better placed than the court to determine the precise periods required for the various procedural steps.
5. The existence of an expedited-hearing scheme for compelling or compassionate circumstances was not a ground for judicial review, but the court recommended that the scheme should be advertised more effectively to tribunal users. Costs were awarded to the Lord Chancellor, subject to the usual conditions applicable to legally aided claimants.