Site icon swarb.co.uk

Naziri and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (JR – Scope – Evidence (IJR): UTIAC 27 Jul 2015

(i) It is intrinsically undesirable that judicial review proceedings be transacted in circumstances where material evidence on which the Applicants seek to rely has not been considered by the primary decision maker.
(ii) There is a strong general prohibition in contemporary litigation against rolling review by the Upper Tribunal in judicial review proceedings. .
(iii) Where a judicial review applicant is proposing to make further representations to the Secretary of State in circumstances where a new decision will forseeably be induced, it will normally be appropriate, to refuse permission or to dismiss the application substantively on the ground that it will be rendered moot and/or an alternative remedy remains unexhausted and/or giving effect to the prohibition against rolling review.
(iv) The principles rehearsed above are to be similarly applied to applications for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(v) Where a draft judgment is circulated in advance of handing down the function of parties and their representatives is confined to notifying mis-spellings, formatting defects, inadvertent factual errors, ambiguities of expression and kindred blemishes: Edwards and Ors R (on the application of) v Environment Agency and Ors [2008] UKHL 22 applied

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 437 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.551570

Exit mobile version