SHABIR AHMED v THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Persistent and egregious non-compliance with the Upper Tribunal’s orders, directions and procedural rules will attract appropriate sanctions. The Tribunal may protect its scarce judicial and administrative resources by withholding relisting, considering dismissal for want of prosecution or misuse of process, making wasted costs orders, considering contempt action, and referring conduct to professional bodies.

Four inter-related appeals against decisions depriving the appellants of citizenship had reached the Upper Tribunal after the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Permission to appeal had been granted and directions required the parties to file and serve skeleton arguments.

The parties’ representatives did not comply with those directions. The appellants supplied neither a hearing bundle nor a skeleton argument, while the respondent’s skeleton argument was provided extremely late. Repeated adjournment requests and failures in the provision of papers caused further waste of Tribunal resources.

The Tribunal addressed the procedural consequences of that sustained non-compliance.

1. The hearing was adjourned. The Tribunal held that the parties’ representatives had persistently and seriously failed to comply with its directions and had treated the proceedings with marked disrespect. Their conduct had wasted scarce judicial and administrative resources.
2. The Tribunal stated that it would henceforth use the full range of available sanctions for persistent and egregious non-compliance. These could include wasted costs orders, reporting rulings, consideration of contempt powers, and referrals to professional bodies.
3. The Tribunal would take no step to relist the appeals at that stage. If the appellants wished to continue them, they had to provide an agreed draft order by 16.00 on the following day. The deadline was immutable.
4. Production of a draft order would not prevent a later dismissal for want of prosecution or misuse of the Upper Tribunal’s process. If relisting occurred, only the convenience of the Chamber and its judges would be considered.
5. The issues of possible contempt proceedings and professional-body referrals were reserved.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal was granted on 11 July 2016. The present hearing was adjourned because of serious procedural non-compliance by the parties’ representatives.
• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appellants’ appeals against deprivation of citizenship decisions; its decision was promulgated on 27 April 2016.