DVP & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Hamid jurisdiction enables the Administrative Court to regulate its procedures and enforce the professional duties owed to it by legal representatives. Urgent applications must be genuinely urgent and must comply precisely with the required court procedures. Form N463 must state the reasons for urgency, the timetable sought, the relevant notice given and the relief requested; cross-referring to other documents is insufficient. Applicants must make full, fair and accurate disclosure of material facts, including matters adverse to their case. Lawyers must act only on the instructions of the clients they represent. Abuse of the urgent applications procedure and breach of candour may justify sanctions or referral to professional regulators.

Six asylum seekers brought materially identical judicial review claims concerning the use of Penally Camp as accommodation. By the time the claims and an application for urgent consideration were issued, all six claimants had been moved to alternative accommodation. Their lawyers nevertheless sought urgent directions and interim relief affecting people still at, or potentially transferred to, the camp.

Swift J refused interim relief and expedition on 30 November 2020 and referred the papers to the Divisional Court under the Hamid jurisdiction. The court considered whether the application was urgent, whether Form N463 had been properly completed, whether the lawyers purported to act without instructions, and whether the duty of candour had been breached.

1. Outcome. The court found that the urgent application was a significant abuse of the Administrative Court’s procedures. The application should never have been made. The court marked its disapproval by public judgment and decided that referral to professional regulators was unnecessary in light of the apologies and acceptance of responsibility.
2. The Hamid jurisdiction is part of the court’s jurisdiction to regulate its own procedures and enforce the overriding duties owed to it by legal professionals. It is not confined to immigration or public law claims.
3. Urgent applications must be genuinely urgent. Practitioners must comply precisely with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2020 and Form N463. The form must itself contain the reasons for urgency, the proposed timetable, the justification for immediate consideration, the position regarding notice, and the relief sought. Leaving sections blank or cross-referring to voluminous documents is unacceptable.
4. The duty of candour requires full, fair and accurate disclosure of all material information. In an urgent or without-notice application this includes facts adverse to the claimant, the procedural history, delay, the defendant’s position, and any fact undermining urgency. The claimants’ failure to disclose that they had left Penally Camp, and the absence of any adequate explanation of delay or the defendant’s objections, breached that duty.
5. Legal representatives cannot seek relief on behalf of persons who have not instructed them. The proposed relief concerned unidentified residents of Penally Camp, whose interests and vulnerabilities were unknown. The application therefore did not concern the claimants and was hopeless.
6. The court emphasised that urgent court resources are limited and that abuse will not be tolerated. Appropriate sanctions may include adverse or wasted costs orders and referral to professional regulators.

This was a first-instance Divisional Court hearing under the Hamid jurisdiction. Swift J’s order dated 30 November 2020 refused interim relief and expedition and referred the papers for consideration by the Divisional Court.