O/A v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An order for interim relief requiring the Secretary of State to provide accommodation must be complied with by providing the accommodation ordered, not merely by producing a timetable for doing so. An extension of time must be proportionate and must reflect the urgency and vulnerability of those affected. Where non-compliance has continued for a substantial period, the court may grant only a short, final extension and require sworn evidence of concrete progress.

The claimant, a Nigerian national receiving asylum support, lived with her three children in temporary hotel accommodation. The Secretary of State had accepted the need for expedited dispersal but had not provided suitable accommodation.

On 20 June 2023, the court ordered the Secretary of State to provide self-catered, fully wheelchair-accessible dispersal accommodation in Croydon by 29 June 2023. After several extensions, the Secretary of State applied for a further 28 days. The issue was whether that extension should be granted and, if so, for how long.

1. Application granted in part. A further 28-day extension was disproportionate. The court extended time only until 4pm on 20 September 2023.
2. The existing accommodation was plainly not “adequate” for the purposes of section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, including because of the family’s health, care and accessibility needs.
3. The interim order required the defendant to provide the physical dispersal accommodation itself. It did not permit compliance by providing only a timetable.
4. The prolonged delay was material. By the new expiry date, three months would have elapsed since the interim order, ten months since the accepted need for expedited dispersal, and sixteen months since the grant of asylum support.
5. The defendant was required to file and serve by 4pm on 13 September 2023 a sworn update, accompanied by a statement of truth, from a person properly informed and acquainted with the facts. The court expected significantly greater and sustained efforts, supported by concrete evidence of progress.

The judgment itself records earlier procedural orders granting successive extensions of time, including the interim relief order made on 20 June 2023 by Richard Clayton KC and subsequent extensions granted by Clive Sheldon KC. This was an application before the Administrative Court for extension of time, rather than an appeal.