Hashem, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where publicly funded solicitors cease to act after legal aid is withdrawn, a claimant wishing to continue proceedings must comply with the applicable service-address requirements. Failure to provide an address for service may justify striking out the claim under CPR rule 3.4(2)(c). Where it is unclear whether the claimant received notice of the strike-out hearing, the court should allow a reasonable period for the claimant to confirm the wish to continue and provide an address for service. If that is not done, the claim may be struck out.

The claimant sought judicial review of an immigration decision. Permission had been granted and the claim had been stayed pending related proceedings. The claimant’s legal aid certificate was later discharged, and his solicitors ceased to have instructions or authority to continue. The claimant did not attend the directions hearing, and his former solicitors did not attend either. The court had to decide whether the claim should be struck out because the claimant had not provided an address for service, while considering the uncertainty over whether he had received notice of the hearing.

1. The claimant had not given an address for service as required by CPR rule 42.2(6)(b)(ii). That failure provided a basis for striking out the claim under CPR rule 3.4(2)(c).
2. Under CPR rule 42.3(6), withdrawal or revocation of legal aid brings the solicitor’s role to an end when the retainer is determined under regulations 24 or 41 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012. A claimant who wishes to continue must either appoint a solicitor or, if acting in person, provide an address for service.
3. There was some uncertainty whether the claimant had received notice of the hearing. The court therefore ordered that the claim would be struck out unless, within 14 days, the claimant notified the court that he wished to continue and supplied the required address for service.
4. The court also directed the former solicitors to provide a further witness statement explaining their failure to disclose the withdrawal of legal aid and their recent contact with the claimant. The substantive merits of the judicial review were not determined.

Not stated in the judgment.