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

Judicial review proceedings become academic where the claimant has obtained the relief sought and no properly arguable basis exists for amending the claim. The court will not determine separate issues, including an asylum application or family-contact arrangements, which fall outside the relief claimed. Where a claimant persists after the substantive dispute has been resolved and a reasonable settlement offer should have been accepted, costs may be divided so that the defendant pays costs up to the date by which acceptance should have occurred, with the claimant liable thereafter.

The claimant, a Kenyan asylum seeker, challenged the adequacy and location of accommodation provided pending determination of his asylum application. He relied on the effect of shared accommodation on his asthma and on the distance from his severely disabled son in Yeovil.

Permission to continue the judicial review was granted. Before the hearing, the defendant provided self-contained accommodation in Bristol, offered payments to facilitate travel between Bristol and Yeovil, and offered to pay the proceedings’ costs. The claimant continued seeking larger accommodation nearer Yeovil and resolution of his asylum and contact issues. The court considered whether any live issue remained.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had obtained the accommodation-related relief sought before the defendant’s letter of 22 September 2015. The proceedings had therefore become academic.
2. There was no application to amend the claim. The court was satisfied that there was no proper basis for amendment even if one had been sought. The self-contained accommodation resolved the complaint concerning exposure to smoking.
3. The claimant’s continuing concerns about the size and location of the accommodation, contact with his son and the progress of his asylum application did not provide a live issue within these proceedings. Those matters were not before the court.
4. The defendant had offered to continue paying £11 per week to facilitate contact and to pay the proceedings’ costs. The claimant should have accepted that offer by 6 October 2015.
5. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs up to and including 6 October 2015. Thereafter the claimant was ordered to pay the costs. If he established that he had legal funding after that date, enforcement was restricted, save by way of set-off, pending assessment under section 26(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

not stated in the judgment.