DMM & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Legal Services Commission & Ors

Interim relief will not be granted merely because the administration of a legal services provider creates serious practical difficulties for vulnerable clients. The claimant must show at least an arguable case that the public authority’s chosen response is unlawful or irrational.

Where an organisation cannot continue, a decision to transfer its files rapidly to active providers may rationally balance client interests and protection of the public purse. Operational difficulties do not themselves invalidate that scheme. A blanket prohibition on adverse immigration decisions is also inappropriate where individual safeguards, guidance and case-by-case remedies can address unfairness. The court may preserve and adjourn an application where future administrative failures might justify generic intervention.

The claimants, acting also in a representative capacity for former clients of Refugee and Migrant Justice, challenged the Legal Services Commission’s termination of its contract with that organisation and its refusal to continue funding after RMJ entered administration.

They sought interim relief requiring continued funding and limited casework pending transfer of RMJ’s files. They also sought a blanket prohibition on specified adverse immigration and asylum decisions affecting clients who had not yet obtained alternative representation.

The court considered whether the Commission’s rapid-transfer model was arguably unlawful or irrational and whether generic relief against the Secretary of State was justified.

Interim relief against the Legal Services Commission and the Secretary of State for Justice was refused. The application concerning the Secretary of State for the Home Department was adjourned and preserved for restoration.

1. Before granting interim relief, the court had to be satisfied at least that there was an arguable case that the Commission’s choice of model was unlawful or irrational. That threshold was not met.
2. RMJ could not continue its business on an ongoing basis. Its offices had largely closed, its staff had been substantially reduced, and its files had to be transferred. In those circumstances, the Commission’s judgment that clients’ interests and protection of the public purse were best served by rapid transfer to new funded providers was rational and lawful. The alternative proposal would require limited remaining staff to undertake extensive casework and file preparation, creating risks of poor advice and delay.
3. Guidance suggesting priority for urgent cases did not mean that non-urgent cases would go unfunded. The Commission’s stated objective was to transfer all RMJ cases within six weeks. Difficulties in achieving that objective did not make the scheme unlawful or irrational, but required continuing co-operation with administrators, RMJ staff and alternative providers to avoid avoidable disadvantage.
4. A blanket prohibition on adverse immigration decisions was not justified on the material before the court. Individual safeguards could address unfairness. Interviews with unaccompanied minors had effectively been stood still; individual cases could be considered under the Secretary of State’s guidance; and, where appropriate, time for an appeal could be enlarged.
5. The court recognised that an adverse decision concerning an unrepresented former RMJ client might arguably constitute an abuse of power in particular circumstances. In a removal case that was not appealable, the Secretary of State was expected to record that the person was a former RMJ client whose instructions had not yet been transferred. The application was adjourned so that it could be restored if systemic administrative failures emerged.