Rameez, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an appeal has been closed or dismissed for non-payment of the required fee, the late-appeal rule does not ordinarily provide a route to bring a second appeal against the same decision on substantially the same grounds. The reinstatement provisions apply only where a fee-satisfaction certificate has been revoked, not where no certificate was ever issued. The overriding objective requires fairness, expedition and efficiency in the interests of the parties and the wider public interest; it does not justify a strained construction of the procedural rules. Loss of a remedy through a solicitor’s procedural default does not, without more, establish a breach of natural justice or warrant judicial review relief.

The claimant, a Pakistani citizen with an EEA residence card based on his marriage to a Czech national, was refused admission and had his card revoked after the Secretary of State concluded that the marriage was one of convenience. His solicitors lodged an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal but failed to pay the required fee. The tribunal later closed the appeal, and removal directions were issued.

The claimant sought judicial review and interim relief. The issue was whether he could revive the appeal under Rules 17A and 17B of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005, or alternatively lodge a late second appeal under Rule 10, and whether removal should be restrained pending that process.

1. Application dismissed. The interim relief granted on 25 August 2013 was brought to an end, and no further order prevented removal.
2. Rule 17A of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 applies where the Lord Chancellor has revoked a certificate of fee satisfaction. It does not apply where no certificate was ever requested or issued. Rule 17B therefore supplied no route to reinstatement.
3. Rule 10 concerns a notice of appeal given outside the initial time limit. It does not ordinarily permit a second opportunity to challenge the same decision on effectively the same substantive grounds after an earlier appeal was legitimately closed for non-payment of the fee.
4. The overriding objective in Rule 4 requires proceedings to be handled fairly, quickly and efficiently, having regard also to the wider public interest. It did not require a strained interpretation of Rule 10.
5. The court treated Al-Medhawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990] 1 AC 876 as the proper starting point. Solicitor negligence causing loss of an appeal did not, without more, amount to a breach of natural justice or a flaw in the decision-making process. Delay, expense and inconvenience caused by removal did not establish an independent basis for continuing relief, and no disruption of family life had been evidenced.

The judgment records earlier procedural steps but no appeal from a lower court decision. Wyn Williams J refused relief on paper on 23 August 2013. On renewal, interim relief was granted by the out-of-hours judge on 25 August 2013. The High Court then brought that relief to an end.