challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the upper tribunal

You are here: Home / Procedure / Challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper

Tribunal

Challenging a refusal of permission toappeal by the Upper Tribunal16 FEBRUARY 2015 BY DESMOND RUTLEDGE

Search...

Updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law

ABOUT CONTACT ARCHIVES MEMBERS COURSES EBOOKS

� � � � �

This website uses cookies. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Read More

Challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal https://www.freemovement.org.uk/challenging-a-refusal-of-permission-...

1 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

Contents

The legal test for permission

Public funding

The procedure

Before the proceedings are issued

Lodging the claim at Court

After the claim has been lodged

After the decision on permission has been made

Costs

This piece started life as a practice note for welfare benefits cases but the same principles are

transferrable to the immigration jurisdiction so we thought it would be helpful to share it here on

Free Movement as well.

If permission to appeal against a decision of a

First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is

refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative

Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not

be able to appeal that decision. This is

because it is an excluded decision under s.

13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and

Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of

permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy

available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014]

EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an

Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).

While there is also provision for the Upper Tribunal to set aside its decision based on a procedural

irregularity before it under rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI:

2698), the circumstances in which this rule will succeed are extremely limited. Moreover, where

the claimant decides to make a set aside application to the Upper Tribunal, there is no provision

to disapply the 16-day deadline for applying to the High Court for judicial review.

The legal test for permission

The legal test for judicial review of an Upper Tribunal’s decision to refuse to grant permission to

appeal to itself was considered by the Supreme Court in R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal and ors

[2011] UKSC 28. The Court decided that the ‘second appeals test’ would provide a proportionate

check, and the test is now part of the Civil Procedure rules under CPR rule 54.7A. These are

different from the normal rules for judicial review in so far as:

the usual deadline of 3 months is reduced to 16 days (54.7A(3);

a higher threshold applies: (54.7A(7); and

there is no right to an oral renewal of the application: (54.7A(8).

The following checklist sets out the factors that need to be considered to determine whether the

CPR 54.7A requirement has been met in a particular case:

(1) Is there an arguable case which has a reasonable prospect of success?This website uses cookies. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Read More


2 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

(2) Does the appeal raise an important point of principle?

(i) Is it an issue where the outcome is capable of benefiting others besides the claimant?

(ii) Is it an issue on which there is no decided authority or where the authorities disagree?

(3) Or is there some other compelling reason to allow the appeal to proceed?

(i) Is the decision ‘perverse or otherwise plainly wrong’?

(ii) Has there been a procedural irregularity amounting to a ‘fundamental unfairness’?

For further judicial guidance on the Cart criteria see:

Paragraphs 130-131 of Lord Dyson SCJ’s judgment in R(Cart) v the UT [2011] UKSC 28

Paragraph 35 of Carnwarth LJ’s (as he then was) judgment in PR (Sri Lanka) v the SSHD

[2011] EWCA Civ 988;

Paragraphs 11 to 32 of Sullivan LJ’s judgment in JD (Congo) & Ors v Secretary of State for

the Home Department & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 327.

If the application for permission to judicial review the Upper Tribunal’s decision is refused an

appeal is made to the Court of Appeal, the legal test for permission is the same, namely (i) does

the appeal raise an important point of principle or practice? or (ii) is there some other compelling

reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it (CPR rule 52.13)?

Public funding

Judicial review remains in scope under paragraph 19(2)(a) of Schedule 1, Part 1 to LASPO.

Accordingly, work done on a public law challenge by way of judicial review of an Upper Tribunal’s

decision to refuse permission comes under the Public Law category. Otherwise, the work can be

covered by the Immigration Law category, in so far as the public law challenge “relates to the

underlying substance of the case”: see Category Definitions in the Standard Civil Contract 2013,

Category Definitions paragraph 13.

However, from 22 April 2014, work done on an application for permission for judicial review will not

be paid unless the Court grants permission for the application to proceed, subject to a

discretionary payment by the Legal Aid Agency (The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment)

(No. 3) Regulations 2014 (SI 607). It should be noted that this does not affect work done prior to

the issuing of proceedings, such as advising on the merits.

The procedure



3 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal are set out below.

Before the proceedings are issued

Proceedings must be commenced within 16 days (instead of the usual deadline of 3 months (Civil

Procedure Rules CPR rule 54.7A(3)). There is no need to comply with the pre-action protocol as

the defendant – the Upper Tribunal – does not have the legal power to change the decision being

challenged (see above and paragraph 6 of the judicial review pre-action protocol). The Secretary

of State for Work and Pensions (or HM Revenue and Customs in the case of Tax Credits or Child

Benefit) should be named as an interested party.

If the deadline has been missed, then reasons for the delay in lodging the claim need to be

provided in the application to persuade the Court to extend the deadline because there is a

reasonable excuse for the delay. Difficulties in obtaining public funding or any difficulties the

claimant may have in accessing specialist advice may justify an extension of time; but delay on

the part of the claimant’s lawyers that cannot be explained will not (see Andrew Finn-Kelcey v

Milton Keynes Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067, at [20]-[29]).

The Upper Tribunal will be the ‘defendant’ in the action but will normally take no part in the

proceedings. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should be added as an ‘interested

party’.

Lodging the claim at Court

When the application for permission to apply for Judicial Review is ready it should be lodged at

the Administrative Court Office – which will normally be in London (unless the Upper Tribunal was

sitting in one of the regions, e.g. Cardiff).

The Court Office will only accept the application if there is a claim form (Form N461) (with copies

so these can be served on the defendant and the interested party) and a permission bundle (see

CPR Part 54.6 and Practice Direction 54A, para 5.9). A court fee (currently £140.00) is also

payable.

After the claim has been lodged

After the claim has been lodged with the Administrative Court, a sealed copy of the claim form

(and accompanying documents) must be served on the defendant and the interested party within

7 days of the date of issue (i.e. the date shown on the court seal).

When the interested party has been served with the claim form they should file an

acknowledgment of service (Form N462) in the Administrative Court Office, within 21 days of the

proceedings being served upon them.



4 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

(9) If permission to apply for judicial review is granted –

(a) if the Upper Tribunal or any interested party wishes there to be a hearing of

the substantive application, it must make its request for such a hearing no later

than 14 days after service of the order granting permission; and

(b) if no request for a hearing is made within that period, the court will make a

final order quashing the refusal of permission without a further hearing.

After the decision on permission has been made

The application for permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review is then considered by a

single judge on the papers.

If the application for permission is successful, then the decision will be quashed after 14 days by

operation of CPR rule 54.7A(9)) and the appeal will then proceed in the Upper Tribunal in the

normal way:

If the application for permission is refused, as there is no right to an oral renewal of the

application (CPR rule 54.7A(8)), the only other remedy available is to apply for permission to

appeal to the Court of Appeal. The deadline for an appeal against a refusal of permission is 7

days (CPR rule 52.15(c), Practice Direction 52C, para 5A).

For further general guidance on the procedure for judicial review see:

Administrative Court Guidance Notes on Applying for Judicial Review – click here.

Guidance Notes on Completing the Judicial Review Claim (Form N462), April 2013 – click

here.

Costs

The general rule as to costs is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the

successful party (CPR rule 44.3(2)(a)). However, no order for costs will usually be made against

the Upper Tribunal if it takes no part in the proceedings (R (Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner

for Birmingham [2004] EWCA Civ 207, para [27]). On the other hand, an interested party will

normally be ordered to pay the claimant’s costs if they opposed the application for judicial review

(R v Hastings Licensing Justices Ex p. John Lovibond & Sons [1968] 1 WLR 735, cited in Davies

(No 2), at para [13].

Share this:



5 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

�

FILED UNDER: PROCEDURE

TAGGED WITH: CART, JUDICIAL REVIEW

About Desmond Rutledge

Desmond Rutledge is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers

where he is a member of the public law and the welfare

benefits team. He has in-depth experience in cases where

there is a cross over with immigration and community care

issues. He writes and provides training on welfare benefits

issues and contributed the section on welfare benefits for migrants in Chapter 14 of

Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice (9th edn) published February 2015.

Related



6 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

The Free Movement immigration law blog is

written by members of the immigration team at

Garden Court Chambers in London, ranked as

top tier in both Chambers and Partners and The

Legal 500. The editor is Colin Yeo.

SUBSCRIBE TO EMAIL UPDATES

OK

Unlawful detention: 2 CPD



7 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

David Bolt, the new Chief Inspector of Borders and

Immigration, started work on 1 May 2015. It is now

quite some time since John Vine … [Read More...]

3 CPD Obviously Winston Churchill had not had to

deal with the immigration law and rules when coining

that phrase. In this conference we … [Read More...]

There are still some firms out there who have not yet

signed up for Free Movement Membership. As an

added incentive, I'm offering a 50% … [Read More...]

See older updates

MOST RECENT POSTS

General election 2015

I'm voting Labour today, and I will be spending the

day out campaigning for my local candidate,

Sarah Sackman. No party is … Read More >>

TEDx talk video: The Human Costof Borders

This is just in from my TEDx talk on the human

cost of borders a couple of weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/O9Hfqc3trhw The editors …

Read More >>

New immigration rules for visitorsto the United Kingdom

A new set of rules for visitors to the United

Kingdom has been introduced taking effect on all

applications made on or after 24 … Read More

>>

What amounts to a “human rightsclaim” generating a new right ofappeal?

Rights of appeal under the Immigration Act 2014



8 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

Secretary of State has decided to … Read More

>>

POSTS BY TOPIC

Posts by topic

IN THE FORUMS

S65 Immigration Act 2014 – Children of

(unmarried) British fathers by Gerard

Harrison

1 hour, 34 minutes ago

RC holder detained by Sonel (BritCits)

17 hours, 12 minutes ago

Webcam interview held at Sheffield for UK

spouse? by Nelam Trewin

18 hours, 33 minutes ago

PERMANENT RESIDENCE – CAN TIME

SPENT LOOKING FOR WORK BE INCLUDED?

by Gordon Irving

2 days, 2 hours ago

NHS Surcharge website payment significant

overcharging by IL

2 days, 12 hours ago



9 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

MEMBERS’ FEEDBACK

Feedback from the members-only training

courses:

� �


Alaha Faryl

Very useful to have links to relevant

forms. Quiz at the end enabled me to

check my understanding and result

came with feedback as to why my

answer(s) were wrong. A pleasurable

way to obtain CPD.


10 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

Find out more

LOGIN

Username or E-mail

Password

Remember Me

LOG IN

Lost Password?

Search...

ABOUT

Free Movement was founded by Colin Yeo in

2007 and Colin continues to edit the blog. Other

members of the immigration team at Garden

Court Chambers and some others also

contribute. See About page for more details.

The blog permits 20 page views per month for

free after which you need to sign up for a

membership package. These start at £7.99. For

more details see the membership page.

DISCLAIMER

The information and commentary on this blog is provided free of charge

for information purposes only. The information and commentary does



11 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

specific legal advice please see the 'Contact' page.

We try to make sure information is accurate at the date it is published.

Immigration law changes very rapidly, though. The older the blog post on

this site, the more likely it is that there have been legal developments

since it was published.

Views expressed in blog posts are those of the author only, not Garden

Court Chambers as a whole.



12 of 12 07/05/2015 13:29

challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the upper tribunal

Documents