IX, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Judicial Review; costs)

What was at stake

A judicial review application challenges the cost orders imposed on an asylum seeker.

What happened

IX, an Egyptian asylum seeker who arrived in the UK in November 2022, filed a judicial review claim in October 2024 challenging a Home Office letter. While the claim was pending, the Home Secretary granted IX asylum on 6 February 2025, rendering the claim academic. The Upper Tribunal was asked to decide costs applications from both parties. Applying Lord Neuberger’s three‑category framework, the Tribunal concluded the case was a compromise with no clear winner and therefore denied IX’s costs while granting the Home Secretary’s costs, subject to limited enforcement because IX was publicly funded.

What the court decided

Where a judicial review claim is compromised or rendered academic before a substantive determination, the Tribunal must assess success in costs by reference to the principles in R(M) v Croydon LBC (Lord Neuberger's three categories) rather than assuming the applicant has "won." Here the Tribunal found the JR claim was very weak and that IX's grant of asylum (6 Feb 2025) was not causally connected to bringing the proceedings — the challenged 22 July 2024 letter contained no operative decision, and the SSHD had already confirmed substantive consideration before issue. The case fell into Lord Neuberger's category (iii) (compromise without a clear winner), so IX could not recover costs. The Tribunal refused IX's costs application and granted the SSHD's counter-application for costs against IX, with enforcement restricted because IX was publicly funded.

How the court got there

The Tribunal held that when a judicial review proceeding ends before trial, the general rule that costs follow the event must be applied using the three categories set out in R(M) v Croydon LBC. Because the asylum grant was not causally linked to the litigation and the claim was weak, the case fell into category (iii) – a compromise without a clear winner – so the applicant was not entitled to costs. Consequently, the Home Secretary’s costs were awarded, but enforcement was restricted due to the applicant’s public funding.

Statutes and cases cited

Categories

Authoritative link