DS, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council

[2012] UKUT 175 (IAC)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] UKUT 175 (IAC)
Court
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judgment date
29 May 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Judicial review Civil procedure
Keywords
age assessment unaccompanied asylum claimant judicial review failure to pursue claim non-attendance service of hearing notice costs
Outcome
application dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A judicial-review application may be dismissed where the claimant has ceased to pursue it. Where reasonable attempts to contact an unrepresented claimant fail, the claimant has not notified a change of address, and properly served notice of the hearing produces neither attendance nor response, the Tribunal may infer that the claimant no longer wishes to continue the claim.

Factual background

The claimant, an Afghan national, challenged Birmingham City Council’s age assessment, which estimated his date of birth as 1 January 1990. Permission for judicial review had been granted and the matter had been transferred from the High Court to the Upper Tribunal.

Before the substantive fact-finding hearing, the claimant ceased to be represented. Neither the council nor the Refugee Council could contact him, attempts to locate him failed, and he did not attend or respond after notice of the resumed hearing was properly served at his last known address.

Held

  1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings. He was unrepresented, could not be contacted despite inquiries, had not notified any change of address, and neither attended nor responded after proper service of the hearing notice.

  2. The challenge to the council’s assessment of the claimant’s date of birth had therefore not been pursued. The Tribunal accepted 1 January 1990 as his most likely date of birth.

  3. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Enforcement required further permission of the Tribunal. The claimant’s publicly funded costs were also to be subject to detailed assessment.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The transferred judicial-review application was dismissed.
  • High Court: Permission for judicial review was granted on 23 April 2010. Directions for a fact-finding hearing were made on 20 May 2010. The proceedings were transferred to the Upper Tribunal on 7 June 2011.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.