Solicitors:
For the first claimant: Jesuis
For the second claimant: Dylan Conrad Kreolle
For the third claimant: S Satha & Co
For the fourth claimant: MQ Hassan
For the defendant: Treasury Solicitor
Counsel:
For the first claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the second claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the third claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the fourth claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the defendant: M McGahey
R (on the application of (1) AWUKU (2) N (3) MURUGESAPILLAI (4) HAMID) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (2012)
[2012] EWHC 3298 (Admin)
DC (Sir John Thomas PQBD, Cranston J) 16/11/2012
IMMIGRATION – LEGAL PROFESSION – CIVIL PROCEDURE
DISCLOSURE : EX PARTE APPLICATIONS : IMMIGRATION DECISIONS : LAW FIRMS : OVERSTAYERS : RELIEF : REMOVAL DIRECTIONS : URGENT APPLICATIONS : NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DISCLOSURE RULES AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF URGENT APPLICATIONS FOR EX PARTE RELIEF : DUTIES OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
The court emphasised the disclosure duties of legal representatives when making urgent applications for ex parte relief in respect of removal directions, and the consequences for solicitors’ firms and legal representatives of non-compliance with the procedural requirements of such applications to the Administrative Court.
When considering conjoined applications for judicial review of decisions by the defendant secretary of state to issue removal directions in respect of the claimants, the court reiterated the disclosure duties of legal representatives when making urgent applications for ex parte relief.
In R. (on the application of Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), the court gave guidance regarding the very high duty of disclosure and the consequences for solicitors’ firms and legal representatives of non-compliance with the procedural requirements of urgent applications to the Administrative Court seeking deferral of removal directions. Further inquiries were to be made in respect of one of the instant applications; the remaining three applications involved serious breaches of disclosure rules and failures to comply with the rules of court.
HELD: The highest obligations of disclosure rested on an advocate or other officer of the court when making an application to the court for ex parte relief. The court relied on those in the legal profession for the performance of that obligation in entertaining such applications. It had to be appreciated that it was absolutely essential that all the points which told against the grant of relief were put on the face of the submission: that was the absolute duty of the solicitor or counsel. Had the true points against the grant of an injunction staying removal been included in the instant cases, no applications would have been made as it would have been obvious to the author of the document that the court would not entertain such an application. It was deeply regrettable that there had been such grave failures to disclose. It was a long-standing failure in the instant kind of work. Although there had not been a strict adherence to the requirements of the court and a long-standing principle of the law, no further action would be taken in respect of the instant applications. However, in the absence of strong mitigating circumstances, it would be the last time the court would not refer individuals to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for such a breach of those very high duties to the court.
Applications refused
Counsel:
For the first claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the second claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the third claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the fourth claimant: Non-counsel representative
For the defendant: M McGahey
Solicitors:
For the first claimant: Jesuis
For the second claimant: Dylan Conrad Kreolle
For the third claimant: S Satha & Co
For the fourth claimant: MQ Hassan
For the defendant: Treasury Solicitor