AC-2024-LON-000883 - [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin)
Administrative Court

AC-2024-LON-000883 - [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin)

Fecha: 31-Jul-2025

Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the King's Bench Division) and Mrs Justice Farbey

Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the King's Bench Division) and Mrs Justice Farbey:

Introduction

1.

The question raised by this claim for judicial review, brought by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, is whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (“SIAC”) had jurisdiction to order the Secretary of State to pay costs. In the SIAC proceedings, the First Interested Party (anonymised as FGF) had sought a review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant him naturalisation as a British citizen. The Secretary of State withdrew the refusal part-way through the SIAC proceedings so that the review did not proceed. FGF sought his costs. The Secretary of State resisted the costs application on the grounds that SIAC had no jurisdiction to make a costs order.

2.

For reasons set out in a judgment dated 23 February 2024, SIAC concluded that it had jurisdiction to award costs to FGF. By order of the same date, SIAC awarded FGF his costs and transferred to the High Court any detailed assessment of those costs, if not agreed.

3.

FGF has played no part in the present claim. H7 and H15 (who are subject to anonymity orders) have been joined as the Second and Third Interested Parties by order of the court. They have each applied for their costs in their own SIAC proceedings. The determination of their costs applications has been stayed by SIAC pending the outcome of the present claim. H7 and H15 contend that they have an interest in the claim as their costs applications will fail if SIAC’s judgment is overturned.

4.

H7 and H15 have not yet been the subject of any decision about costs and have no interest in FGF’s costs. It is commonplace for a judgment to have an influence on, or binding effect in, other cases that have yet to be decided. We do not consider that H7 and H15 are “directly affected” by the present claim, which is the test for qualifying as an interested party (CPR 54.1(2)(f)). Nevertheless, we were prepared to hear Mr Nick Armstrong KC, who appeared with Ms Emma Daykin on behalf of H7 and H15, in accordance with the previous order of the court. Mr Armstrong had appeared for FGF in SIAC.