Qazim Tota, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Hamid jurisdiction enables the court to regulate its procedures and enforce the duties owed to it by legal professionals. It applies across all types of proceedings. Practitioners using urgent or out-of-hours procedures must satisfy themselves that the case is genuinely urgent, comply precisely with the applicable forms and guidance, and give full and frank disclosure, particularly where the application is without notice.

False representations about authorisation to conduct litigation are serious. The court may refer legal representatives to their regulator, admonish them, or make a wasted costs order. A failure to disclose a recent materially relevant decision, or the applicable test for urgent injunctive relief, may itself amount to a breach of duty to the court.

The judgment determined three referrals under the Hamid jurisdiction. The first arose from an out-of-hours application for interim relief in immigration proceedings made using forms which falsely represented that a non-solicitor was authorised to conduct litigation. The second concerned an out-of-hours immigration application containing inadequate information and failing to disclose an earlier refusal of relief.

The third concerned three urgent applications seeking to restrain HM Revenue and Customs from publishing information under section 86 of the Finance Act 2022. The applications failed to explain delay, omitted a materially relevant decision in Veqta, and did not address the stringent test for injunctive relief against a public authority. The central issues were whether the conduct breached duties owed to the court and what regulatory consequences should follow.

1. Hamid jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is a facet of the court’s power to regulate its own procedures and enforce the overriding duties owed to it by legal professionals. It extends beyond immigration and public law proceedings. Possible responses include referral to the relevant regulator, admonishment and, where appropriate, a wasted costs order.
2. Urgent applications. The out-of-hours and immediates procedures are limited resources. Practitioners must consider carefully whether an application is genuinely urgent, explain why it was not made earlier and why it cannot await the next sitting day, complete the prescribed form accurately and answer its questions directly. The duty of full and frank disclosure has particular importance where relief is sought without notice and on the papers.
3. Qazim Tota. The concerns about the missing underlying documentation, the unexplained failure to attend the asylum interview, the absence of information about the change of solicitors and the delay were well founded. Ms Haider also falsely represented on two forms that she was a solicitor authorised to conduct litigation. The court was concerned that the firm had not demonstrated adequate supervision or preventive measures. The matter was referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
4. Rasim Halilaj. The OOH form failed to explain the urgency, the delay and the nature of the application. It did not disclose that relief had been refused earlier that day. The papers were confused and there was no properly advanced public law case. The court was satisfied that Ms Virdi had no part in the conduct, and considered the matter sufficiently addressed by the referral and judgment.
5. Apricot Umbrella and related claims. The failure to disclose Veqta, including its refusal of permission on substantially overlapping grounds, breached counsel’s duty to the court and the duty of full and frank disclosure. The applications also failed to address the applicable test for restraining publication by a public authority and did not explain the asserted risk to the businesses. The matter was referred to the Bar Standards Board.

The judgment concerned three referrals made under the Hamid jurisdiction following orders by Collins Rice J, Linden J and Chamberlain J. The Divisional Court considered the referrals and made regulatory referrals in the Qazim Tota and Apricot Umbrella matters. It considered the Rasim Halilaj matter sufficiently addressed by the referral and judgment.