AC-2024-LON-003989 - [2025] EWHC 2148 (Admin)

In light of my conclusions above, it is not necessary for me to consider the alternative submission made by the Defendant based upon s. 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

As I have concluded that the Defendant’s implicit withdrawal decision in June 2023 was lawful, then it follows that the claimant did not have an ongoing asylum claim at the time of his detention, so the Claimant’s detention was lawful and justified.

For these reasons, the challenge in relation to unlawful detention also fails.

For all the reasons set out above, this claim for judicial review is dismissed.

Following receipt of the draft judgment, both parties made written submissions in relation to costs. In reaching an appropriate decision I have had regard to CPR 44.2 and the relevant general principles to be taken into account. The Defendant has been successful in defending this case and costs would ordinarily follow the event. The Claimant has not sought to persuade the court to make any other order for costs, and I do not consider there are any reasons why the usual order is not appropriate in this case.

The Claimant has invited the Court to summarily assess the Defendant’s costs. The Claimant has also provided written submissions which challenge many parts of the Defendant’s schedule of costs, and seeks very significant reductions, totalling around 60%, in the overall sum to be awarded. The Defendant submits no percentage deductions are appropriate and that a detailed assessment should be ordered if the parties cannot agree the costs.

Having considered the parties’ submissions, I do not consider there are any proper grounds for any percentage discounts. and I consider that the other substantive points raised by the Claimant are best determined by a detailed assessment.

In these circumstances, I consider that the most appropriate order in this case is for the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, which are to be subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.

A final order reflecting this judgment and the above orders in relation to costs has been approved.