NN, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The High Court may grant interim injunctive relief in public law proceedings for the benefit of persons who are not parties where they are identically situated to the claimant. The jurisdiction is not removed by section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which concerns claims where the final outcome would probably have been unchanged, not interim injunctions.

Whether general relief is appropriate depends on the adapted American Cyanamid principles. The claimant must show a real prospect of success. The court must then assess the balance of convenience, including irreparable harm, the wider public interest, and the practical effect on public resources and service provision.

NN and LP, both recognised victims of modern slavery and trafficking, challenged the Secretary of State’s policy of ending support 45 days after a positive Conclusive Grounds determination. They also challenged the unpublished policy governing extensions of support.

Permission was granted on all grounds, and individual interim relief was continued. The issue was whether similar interim relief should be granted for all similarly situated victims whose support would otherwise end before determination of the claims. The central questions were whether the court had jurisdiction to grant relief benefiting non-parties and whether the balance of convenience favoured that course.

1. Jurisdiction. The High Court had jurisdiction under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant an injunction for the benefit of persons who were not parties but were identically situated to the claimants. The power was broad and was not restricted so as to exclude such relief. HN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1043 provided support for that conclusion.
2. Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 did not prevent general interim relief. It addressed academic judicial-review claims where the impugned conduct would probably have made no difference to the final outcome. It did not concern interim injunctive relief and had not removed the High Court’s historic power by implication.
3. Applicable test. The principles in American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396 applied, subject to modification for the public-law context. The claimants had to show a real prospect of success. The balance of convenience then required consideration of the wider public interest, including the public authority’s interest in continuing to apply its policy. The approach was supported by Smith v Inner London Education Authority [1978] 1 All ER 411, Sierbein v Westminster City Council [1987] 86 LGR 43 and R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1425 (Admin).
4. There was a serious issue to be tried and a real risk of irreparable harm to a significant number of highly vulnerable trafficking victims if support ended after 45 days. The extension policy did not remove that risk because it was discretionary and insufficiently transparent. The evidence showed that continued support would increase pressure but would not make the system unworkably overloaded in the short term. The balance of convenience therefore favoured general interim relief.
5. The Defendant was ordered to continue support under the Victims of Modern Slavery Contract for similarly situated victims pending determination of the claims. The parties were invited to draw up a suitable order.

The judgment itself describes an earlier interim-relief judgment in the same proceedings, reported as [2019] EWHC 766 (Admin). Permission for judicial review and continuation of individual interim relief were granted. General interim relief was then ordered by this judgment.