The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant information required by the prescribed form except. The difference was in the absence of a statement of truth. The question was whether the failure to use the prescribed form rendered the application for leave to appeal a nullity.
Held: The court must look at what was the intended effect of non-compliance, not just whether the requirement was expressed to be mandatory.
The court discussed the conventional distinction between directory and mandatory requirements. The position is complex and the legislation should be judged as to what were intended to be the consequences of the non-compliance. This is assessed on a consideration of the language of the legislation against the factual circumstances of the non-compliance. Procedural requirements are designed to further the interests of justice and any consequence which would achieve a result contrary to those interests should be treated with considerable caution: ‘Because of what can be the very undesirable consequences of a procedural requirement which is made so fundamental that any departure from the requirement makes everything that happens thereafter irreversibly a nullity it is to be hoped that provisions intended to have this effect will be few and far between.’
The starting point is that where the word ‘shall’ is used ‘the requirement is never intended to be optional’.
Lord Woolf MR said: ‘I suggest that the right approach is to regard the question of whether a requirement is directory or mandatory as only at most a first step. In the majority of cases there are other questions which have to be asked which are more likely to be of greater assistance than the application of the mandatory/directory test: The questions which are likely to arise are as follows:
(a) Is the statutory requirement fulfilled if there has been substantial compliance with the requirement and, if so, has there been substantial compliance in the case in issue even though there has not been strict compliance? (The substantial compliance question.)
(b) Is the non-compliance capable of being waived, and if so, has it, or can it and should it be waived in this particular case? (The discretionary question.) I treat the grant of an extension of time for compliance as a waiver.
(c) If it is not capable of being waived or is not waived then what is the consequence of the non-compliance? (The consequences question.)
Which questions arise will depend upon the facts of the case and the nature of the particular requirement. The advantage of focusing on these questions is that they should avoid the unjust and unintended consequences which can flow from an approach solely dependent on dividing requirements into mandatory ones, which oust jurisdiction, or directory, which do not. If the result of non-compliance goes to jurisdiction it will be said jurisdiction cannot be conferred where it does not otherwise exist by consent or waiver.’
Judges:
Lord Woolf MR, Judge and May LJJ
Citations:
Times 26-May-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 354, [1999] EWCA Civ 3010, [1999] 3 All ER 231, [2000] Imm AR 10, [1999] INLR 241
Links:
Statutes:
Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1993 (1993 No 1661) 13
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited in – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Appeal from – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Jeyeanthan Admn 3-Apr-1998
An appeal by the Home Secretary against a ruling that he had to use the same prescribed form as would be used by the asylum seeker. The use of a letter which omitted a substantial and important declaration was invalid. Lord Woolf MR made plain the . .
Applied – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Saad and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Dec-2001
The grant by the Secretary of State of exceptional leave to remain in the UK, did not remove the right of an asylum seeker to appeal a rejection of his claim for asylum. The applicant had the right to have his status, and the UK’s compliance with . .
Cited – Rydqvist v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 24-Jun-2002
The applicant had applied to the tribunal with regard to his entitlement to job-seeker’s allowance, but withdrew his application before the hearing. The tribunal had nevertheless heard the case and held against him. He appealed that finding. The . .
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Cited – Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police CA 19-May-2005
Mr Seal noisily objected to a neighbour blocking in his car. Police were called who took him into custody under the 1983 Act. He was released several days later, and eventually sought damages for his wrongful treatment. He had failed to first seek . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
Cited – Bentham, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Wandsworth Admn 7-Feb-2006
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, saying that he had been wrongfully committed to the crown court under the 1998 Act. The note referred only to a ‘conspiracy without further specification. The crown court had remitted him to the . .
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
Cited – North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Delayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .
Cited – Rochdale Borough Council v Dixon CA 20-Oct-2011
The defendant tenant had disputed payment of water service charges and stopped paying them. The Council obtained a possession order which was suspended on payment or arrears by the defendant at andpound;5.00. The tenant said that when varying the . .
Cited – Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council SC 18-Mar-2015
Objection had been made that a plan, used to register a right of way before it would disappear if un-registered, was to the wrong scale and that therefore the application was ineffetive.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The plan was too . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Administrative
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.136039
