IX, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Judicial Review; costs)
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
A judicial review application challenges the cost orders imposed on an asylum seeker.
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.
Categories
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.