Khurma v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An application for permission to appeal should be dismissed where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success. An application to vary judicial review proceedings cannot survive a decision already made by the Secretary of State if, by that stage, there is no possibility of amending the decision. An Article 8 ground must likewise disclose a realistic prospect of success. The court may proceed in the absence of the applicant and legal representatives where proper notice was given, an adjournment was refused, the solicitors remain on the record, and no proper further application is made.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)’s decision dated 3 July 2014 refusing permission to apply for judicial review. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Arden LJ on 14 January 2015. The applicant’s solicitors sought an adjournment shortly before the hearing, initially relying on counsel’s unavailability. The court refused the request, and no representative attended at the listed time. Counsel later attended only to explain the solicitors’ position. The central issue was whether the application for permission to appeal had any real prospect of success.

1. Application dismissed. The court had given the solicitors notice of the hearing and had refused the adjournment request. The solicitors remained on the record, no proper further adjournment application was made, and neither the applicant nor an advocate attended to pursue the application.
2. Having read the papers, including the grounds, skeleton arguments and the decisions below, the court concluded that there were no real prospects of success. The Upper Tribunal judge’s reasons had been endorsed by Arden LJ when refusing permission on the papers.
3. The attempt to vary the application was made after the Secretary of State had made her decision. At that stage there was no possibility of amending the decision, and the application could not survive the decision. The proposed Article 8 ground also had no real prospect of success.
4. The correspondence seeking an adjournment gave an inaccurate explanation. The court required a partner of Abbott & Co to attend on 15 July 2015 to explain the solicitors’ conduct and why no representative attended the hearing. The court reserved consideration of whether a costs order should be made against the solicitors personally, pending that explanation.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): On 3 July 2014, refused permission to apply for judicial review.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Arden LJ refused permission to appeal on the papers on 14 January 2015. Lady Justice Gloster dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal on 8 July 2015.