Onyebuenyi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to proceed with a renewed judicial review application may be refused where the claim has no arguable merit and the claimant can present submissions through lawyers or in writing. Removal from the jurisdiction does not, without more, justify ordering the claimant’s return or adjourning the hearing. An injunction preventing removal becomes academic once removal has occurred. A mandatory order requiring the grant of leave to remain is an exceptional remedy and would rarely, if ever, be made at that stage of proceedings.

The claimant, a Nigerian national, challenged his arrest, relied on outstanding complaints and proceedings, and alleged that removal would breach articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. Permission was refused on the papers, and the claimant renewed his application for an oral hearing. Administrative errors delayed processing of the renewal, and he was removed to Nigeria before the hearing.

He sought an adjournment until completion of medical treatment and additional relief, including an injunction against removal and a mandatory order for at least one year’s leave to remain. The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned, whether his return should be ordered, and whether permission should be granted.

1. The renewed application for permission was refused, and the application for an adjournment was also refused. The claimant had no arguable case on the papers.

2. The claimant’s removal did not provide a basis for ordering his return to the United Kingdom. He could participate by instructing solicitors or counsel, or by making written submissions. The evidence did not show that his medical treatment prevented him from doing so.

3. The requested injunction against removal was academic because removal had already taken place. There was no basis for granting the additional relief sought.

4. A mandatory order requiring the court to grant leave to remain would rarely, if ever, be ordered by the Administrative Court, particularly at this stage of the proceedings. The claimant was intelligent and capable of making his own submissions or instructing lawyers, so no further adjournment was justified.

Not stated in the judgment.