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

Ms Giovannetti submitted that, even if SIAC was correct in holding that it has jurisdiction to award costs to an applicant when it decides that the decision under review should be set aside, it erred in concluding that such a power extends to the situation where the Secretary of State has withdrawn a decision. The power to make orders and grant relief in section 2D(4) arises only if SIAC “decides that the decision should be set aside.” In FGF’s case, the decision was withdrawn. Ms Giovannetti submitted that SIAC cannot set aside a decision once it has been withdrawn. All that remains for SIAC to do is to take the formal steps of recording that the appeal has been withdrawn and giving notice to that effect under rule 11A(3). SIAC has no discretion to make any judicial decision upon the withdrawal or any other matter.

Mr Armstrong’s submissions on Issue 2 rested on the proposition – which we have rejected – that SIAC has a costs jurisdiction under section 2D in relation to successful review applications. He submitted that, once that costs power is established, there can be no good reason why it should not extend to cases where the application must be treated as withdrawn. He relied on SIAC’s reasoning.