Jetly & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Relief from sanctions is unlikely where a claimant repeatedly breaches procedural rules and clear court orders, particularly after receiving a final opportunity to remedy the defaults. The Denton v T H White Ltd three-stage approach applies in judicial review. Public law litigation requires appropriate formality and predictability. A claim under section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 requires proof of each statutory condition. For the right of abode under section 2(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971, the relevant parent or grandparent must have acquired CUKC status in the United Kingdom, rather than abroad.

The claimants, two adult brothers born in India, sought judicial review of decisions refusing registration as British citizens under section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981. Permission was granted on the issue whether they satisfied the statutory right-of-abode condition. Before the substantive hearing, serious irregularities emerged concerning the unsigned claim form, the identity and authority of the solicitors acting, repeated failures to comply with procedural rules and court orders, and inadequate hearing bundles. An earlier adjournment gave the claimants 21 days to remedy the defects. They failed to do so. The court therefore decided whether to grant relief from sanctions and permit the claim form to be verified, and considered the proposed nationality claim’s merits.

1. Relief refused and claim struck out. The breaches were serious and significant. They occurred against a background of delay, an abortive hearing, repeated non-compliance and failure to comply with an order which had effectively given a final opportunity to put the claim in order.
2. The court applied the three-stage approach in Denton v T H White Ltd. There was no good reason for failing to issue an application to verify the claim form, seek relief from sanctions, or file proper bundles within the 21-day period. The need for efficient and proportionate litigation, and for compliance with rules and court orders, outweighed the absence of additional prejudice to the defendant.
3. Judicial review claims must be conducted with appropriate formality and predictability. The merits are relevant at the final stage, but under R(Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department they ordinarily carry significant weight only where the grounds are plainly very strong or very weak. The court nevertheless considered the merits because the hearing had been listed for the substantive claim.
4. Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 requires all four statutory conditions to be met. Following Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ize-Iyamu, the relevant ancestral acquisition of CUKC status for section 2(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 had to have occurred in the United Kingdom.
5. Archbold was directed to come off the record. Aaron & Ace were treated as coming onto the record, with service of notice of change dispensed with, and were ordered to pay £1,000 wasted costs. The judgment and papers were sent for consideration by the SRA and DPP.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted by Michael Kent QC, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, on 9 January 2018. The substantive hearing was adjourned by HH Judge Wall QC on 19 September 2018. The claim was then struck out for serious and persistent procedural non-compliance.