AC-2025-LON-003558 - [2025] EWHC 2688 (Admin)

The second point which caused me concern was this. It had occurred to me to mention, at the start of the Teams hearing, that the Court understood that the flight was due to take place early the following morning at 07:45. I said to the parties (at around 21:15) that, if there were any practical point about the time by when the Court’s ruling was needed, I wanted to ensure that I was promptly made aware of it. Neither Counsel was aware of any such feature. And in the period after receipt of the documents in the case at 18:31 nobody had communicated with the Court any such feature. I record here that I had felt confident that – if it had been needed – there was ample time through the night if necessary to deal with the case ahead of an 07:45 flight.

It appeared that, during the Teams hearing, the SSHD’s lawyers or the Home Office officials sought information on the point that I had raised. The hearing was later interrupted so that I could be told that “the Court’s decision is needed by 23:00”. Later on in the evening, this was replaced with “by 23:30”. Again, I decided not to interrogate this further or ask for it to be explained. I decided that it was necessary to focus time and energy on the legal merits of the two cases.

There are obvious concerns about this sort of practical cut-off time. I should make clear that I did not take it, from what the Home Office was communicating to me, that an interim injunction if granted after 23:00/23:30 would be ignored. Nobody was saying that an injunction issued at say 6am – and communicated to Counsel, GLD and the relevant arms of the Home Office – would not have been complied with. What I took from what I was told was rather different. I took it that there were practical or operational issues which meant that the removal would be stood down at 23:00/23:30 if the Court were still seized of the case but had not been able to make a decision. In other words, the bringing of the claim and the Court dealing with it would mean the removal would not, for practical reasons, then go ahead. I repeat: I did not interrogate or investigate this. I have not done so. Instead, my resolve was to deal with both cases on their legal merits. That is what we did. I was satisfied that the case was allocated adequate court time and that the parties received a fair hearing.

For the future, I think it is important in dealing with urgent interim relief that – if there is some cut-off point – the Court, and contemporaneously the claimant’s representatives, should promptly be made aware of it. It may well also be necessary for the Home Office to explain and even justify it. A public authority’s lawyers, instructed to deal with interim relief, do need to be primed so that they can communicate and explain any such feature. Counsel does need to be briefed about it. It should be communicated at the time when the Court is considering how to use the time, how much pre-reading time to allow itself, and what time to convene a hearing. None of this is a criticism of anyone in the present case. It is a point for the future. It may also be a topic which would be worth some enquiry, independently of and away from the heat and urgency of any individual case.