Secretary of State for the Home Department v RK

Service of a tribunal determination on a Presenting Officers’ Unit is effective where that unit accepts service on behalf of the Secretary of State. An informal administrative understanding that allowed determinations should be routed to a different specialist team does not displace the service rules unless it amounts to a sufficiently formal notification of an address for service under the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

Where the application is late, the Upper Tribunal must admit it only if admission is in the interests of justice. A claimed internal-routing error, unsupported by adequate evidence and followed by further delay, did not provide a good reason to extend time.

The First-tier Tribunal allowed RK’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him. The Secretary of State’s subsequent application for permission to appeal was received after the applicable time limit.

A First-tier Tribunal panel refused to extend time and did not admit that application. The Secretary of State then applied to the Upper Tribunal, also out of time, contending that the determination should have been served directly on the Specialist Appeals Team at Angel Square rather than on the Presenting Officers’ Unit in Cardiff.

The central issues were whether service on the Cardiff unit was good service and, if so, whether it was in the interests of justice to admit the late application.

1. The application was not admitted. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to extend time. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision allowing RK’s deportation appeal therefore remained undisturbed.

2. The determination was clearly served on the Presenting Officers’ Unit in Cardiff on 2 May 2014. That unit accepted it and forwarded it internally to Angel Square. Under rule 55 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005, service on a notified representative was service on the party, and time began to run upon that service.

3. The asserted arrangement for allowed appeals to be sent to Angel Square did not alter that conclusion. There was no adequate evidence that the arrangement applied at the relevant time, and the later email relied upon post-dated the events. At most, there was an informal understanding. It had not been sufficiently formalised to constitute notification of an address for service under rule 56. If the Secretary of State considered Cardiff was not the proper address, the document should promptly have been returned for proper service rather than accepted and internally forwarded.

4. There was no good reason to extend time. The claimed first delay was unsupported by a witness statement, and there were further procedural irregularities and delay in seeking permission from the Upper Tribunal. The asserted importance and sensitivity of deportation appeals supported prompt handling, including checks and rapid onward transmission where a decision had reached the wrong internal team.

5. Under rule 21(7)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, a late application could be admitted only where that was in the interests of justice. That condition was not met. The existing anonymity order was continued pursuant to rule 14.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The Secretary of State’s late application was not admitted.
• First-tier Tribunal: It allowed RK’s appeal against deportation on 1 May 2014. A First-tier Tribunal panel later refused to extend time for the Secretary of State’s application for permission to appeal and did not admit it.