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

A judicial review claim becomes academic where subsequent events provide the claimant with the practical relief sought and no live dispute remains affecting the parties’ rights or obligations.

The Administrative Court retains a discretion to determine an academic claim, but that discretion must be exercised cautiously. A fact-sensitive claim concerning the adequacy of asylum accommodation will not ordinarily justify determination merely because similar issues may arise for others, particularly where the pleaded case is not a systemic challenge and disputed allegations would require disproportionate fact-finding or cross-examination.

The claimant, an asylum-seeker, challenged the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to provide adequate accommodation under sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. She complained that hotel accommodation was unsuitable for herself and her infant son, including because of its size, food arrangements and an alleged incident of harassment by a member of hotel staff.

During the proceedings, the claimant and her son were moved to self-contained, self-catering accommodation, which was the practical relief sought. The court therefore had to decide whether the claim had become academic and, if so, whether it should nevertheless exercise its discretion to determine it in the public interest.

1. The claim was academic. The claimant and her son had been moved to self-contained, self-catering accommodation during the proceedings. There was consequently no longer a case directly affecting the parties’ rights and obligations, and the practical relief sought had been obtained.
2. The court retained a discretion to determine the claim. The discretion recognised in L, M and P v Devon County Council and the approach derived from R v Home Secretary ex p Salem required caution. An academic public-law claim may nevertheless be decided where there is a good public-interest reason, such as a short point of statutory construction likely to affect many similar cases.
3. There was no sufficient public-interest reason here. The pleaded claim concerned whether the accommodation was adequate for this claimant and her son in their particular circumstances. It was not framed as a systemic challenge to the defendant’s policies or processes, and no amendment had been sought. The issues were fact-sensitive, including the disputed allegation of harassment.
4. Procedural fairness also weighed against determination. Resolving the harassment allegation would potentially require findings adverse to the claimant or the staff member without oral evidence and cross-examination. Although the court may direct oral evidence in an appropriate judicial review claim, adjourning the final hearing for that purpose would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective when the claim had already become academic.
5. The court therefore declined to determine the substantive adequacy claim. There was no good reason in the public interest to proceed.