Al Mahfuz & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor

The Administrative Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own procedures and refer appropriate conduct matters to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Solicitors’ firms must maintain effective supervision and systems, particularly where unqualified staff handle immigration and asylum litigation. A principal remains responsible for preventing unauthorised staff from issuing proceedings, communicating with the court, or advancing claims without proper legal scrutiny. Serious supervisory failures, coupled with bogus or wholly misconceived judicial review claims, may justify referral of the firm and relevant files to the regulator.

The court considered five Administrative Court and Upper Tribunal immigration-related claims associated with Heans Solicitors Limited. Serious concerns arose about the conduct of the claims, including proceedings issued or advanced by an unqualified paralegal and a consultant solicitor. Some claims challenged decisions that did not exist; others misstated the decision under challenge or advanced claims with no public law basis.

The principal solicitor accepted responsibility for supervision but relied on inadequate systems, staff misconduct and periods of ill health. The central issue was whether the court should exercise its inherent procedural jurisdiction and refer the matter, with the court files, to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

1. Disposition. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and ordered that the matter be referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for a full investigation, accompanied by the entire court files.
2. The jurisdiction, described as the Hamid jurisdiction, enables the Administrative Court to govern its own procedures and refer appropriate cases concerning professional conduct to the regulator. The court relied on R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin) and R (Sathivel, Ajani v Ncube) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2018 EWHC 913 (Admin).
3. The principal of a solicitors’ firm is responsible for supervising paralegals, case workers and consultants. Effective systems must prevent unqualified staff from conducting litigation, using the firm’s communications, issuing proceedings or relying on pre-signed documents without proper approval.
4. The failures were grossly inadequate. They permitted an unqualified paralegal to conduct litigation for himself and clients, and permitted the advancement of claims that were bogus, copied, directed at non-existent decisions, or otherwise wholly misconceived. A consultant solicitor also advanced a claim which appeared to have no prospect of success.
5. The court emphasised that immigration and asylum practitioners should be appropriately qualified. Unsustainable claims clog the system and prejudice valid claims. Later improvements to internal procedures did not remove the need for regulatory investigation.

Not stated in the judgment. The proceedings concerned the Administrative Court’s exercise of its inherent jurisdiction following concerns arising from earlier orders and related claims.