Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed: CA 13 Nov 1996

The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing expeditons’ by those seeking a judicial review.
Woolf LJ MR said: ‘on an application for judicial review there is usually no [disclosure] because [disclosure] should be unnecessary because it is the obligation of the [defendant] public body in its evidence to make fresh disclosure to the court of the decision-making process.’
Woolf LJ MR
Times 18-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 946, [1998] 1 WLR 763, [1997] INLR 137, [1997] 1 All ER 228, [1997] COD 205
Bailii
British Nationality Act 1981 44(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThe Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedAl-Sweady and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Defence Admn 2-Oct-2009
The claimant’s son had died whilst in the custody of the British Armed Forces in Iraq. His uncle now claimed that his human rights had been infringed. The case ‘raised a fundamental issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR because if the . .
CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.140813