Singh & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendants in judicial review claims must comply promptly with the timetable for filing an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds. Although a short first extension of up to three weeks may generally be treated generously, later applications require a full explanation and compelling case-specific reasons. Lack of resources or foresight will not ordinarily justify substantial delay. The court must retain control of public law litigation and may impose severe, including costs, sanctions where procedural default wastes court and party resources. The same principles apply to claimants. Exceptional cases may justify more than six weeks, but such cases should be rare.

The court heard applications by the Secretary of State for extensions of time to file acknowledgements of service and summary grounds in twenty asylum, immigration and temporary migration judicial review claims. Most applications followed repeated extensions and substantial delay. The court considered the procedural timetable under CPR Part 54, the purpose of summary grounds at the permission stage, the effect of administrative workload, and the appropriate approach to further extensions and sanctions.

One claim was stayed pending country guidance, and one claim concerned outstanding damages after leave to remain had been granted. The remaining cases concerned late acknowledgements which had by then been filed.

1. The applications concerned important procedural obligations. Judicial review claims must be brought and determined promptly, reflecting the public interest in the finality of administrative decisions. Section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR rule 54.5 reflect that requirement.
2. Under CPR rule 54.8, an acknowledgement of service must generally be filed within 21 days of service and served promptly thereafter. Summary grounds primarily assist the court when deciding whether permission should be granted and whether permission should be limited. They are not simply an early version of detailed grounds of defence. The principles identified in R (Ewing) v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [2005] EWCA Civ 1583 and R (Davy) v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1116 were applied.
3. The court could not formulate rigid guidelines because each application depends on its facts. Some complex cases may require more than 21 days, but very few should require more than six weeks. A first extension of up to three weeks may, during the relevant transitional period, be treated generously unless the claimant shows particular prejudice.
4. Second and subsequent applications require a full explanation for the delay and a firm filing date. The court should scrutinise them rigorously and should expect them to fail unless compelling, case-specific reasons are demonstrated. A lack of resources or foresight does not justify substantial routine delay.
5. The court must maintain effective control of each case. It may impose sanctions, including costs sanctions, where delay without good reason wastes court or party resources. The same principles apply even-handedly to claimants. Where compromise is reasonably possible, concise summary grounds explaining the position and giving a realistic date may suffice.
6. The extensions were granted in the eighteen cases where acknowledgements had been filed, so that those documents were treated as in time. No further order was made in K because the claim was stayed. In Zewdu, the Secretary of State was ordered to file the acknowledgement and summary grounds by 4 pm on 1 October 2013, failing which judgment would be entered for the claimant on damages to be assessed.