Grundy, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs

The Registration of Overseas Births and Deaths Regulations 1982 did not prohibit the Secretary of State from registering an overseas birth. If registration ceased because of a policy adopted after the British Nationality Act 1981, that was an administrative decision rather than a legislative prohibition. A renewed judicial review claim should not be refused for delay where the claimant could reiterate the request and thereby set time running again, particularly where admitting the claim would not prejudice good administration. The practical value of obtaining a birth certificate may also be sufficient to justify consideration of the claim.

The claimant, a British citizen born in 1944 in an internment camp in Germany to parents from Jersey, sought permission to challenge the Secretary of State’s refusal to issue her with an English birth certificate. The Secretary of State relied on the Registration of Overseas Births and Deaths Regulations 1982, and alternatively on delay and the limited value of the remedy. On a renewed application for permission, the court considered whether the Regulations prevented registration, whether the claim was out of time, and whether the absence of a British birth certificate was sufficiently consequential to warrant judicial review.

1. The renewed application was adjourned so that the Secretary of State could amend the summary grounds or explain precisely the basis for refusing registration. The existing grounds did not make that basis clear.

2. Regulation 4(1) of the Registration of Overseas Births and Deaths Regulations 1982 provided for registers of births and deaths and permitted registration where the prescribed conditions were met. It did not prevent the Secretary of State from registering a birth. Any cessation of registration for persons in the claimant’s position after the British Nationality Act 1981 would therefore have resulted from an administrative decision, not legislative prohibition.

3. Delay was not a sufficient reason to refuse permission. Although the claim had been issued outside the usual three-month period, the claimant could reiterate her request if registration was legally required, thereby setting time running again. Admission of a late claim would not prejudice good administration.

4. The court was not persuaded that the absence of a British birth certificate was so inconsequential that the claim should be refused on that basis. The claimant’s British citizenship did not eliminate the possible practical significance of the certificate.

5. The court directed that the corrected transcript be provided to the claimant and the Secretary of State.