[2025] EWCA Civ 1134

Mr Brown argues that the judge erred in multiple respects in concluding that the SSHD could not satisfy the “gateway” provisions of rule 19.2(2), given her statutory responsibilities towards asylum seekers. He draws specific attention to the wide definition of “dispute” (“issues”) discussed in Betta Oceanway and Pablo Star (see above); he argues that the judge was wrong to find that the dispute was narrowly drawn between the Council and Somani only in respect of an “alleged planning breach” ([12] of the party-status judgment). Although the judge had accepted that there was a public interest argument in the SSHD’s statutory duty to accommodate asylum seekers, and that this “is an aspect of that balance of convenience”, Mr Brown argued that the judge was then wrong to say that this was not an issue between the Council and Somani. The judge’s focus on the ‘weight’ to be attached to the public interest arguments “against other matters” ([14] of the party-status judgment) should have been enough to justify the SSHD’s joinder.

Mr Green argues that the judge was right to dismiss the SSHD’s application and that her case now is premised upon a misreading of the judgment. He argued that the judge rightly reflected the public interest arguments on both sides in the case and asserted that as issue had indeed been already joined between the Council and Somani about the weight to be attached to the same, there was no role for the SSHD. The judge, he said, was well aware of the impact on the SSHD of any injunction and had this much in his mind. Insofar as the judge had referred to the fact that it was not “necessary” for the SSHD to be joined, this was merely picking up language which Mr Brown had earlier used in argument. He drew our attention to the fact that the SSHD had not been a party to a number of previously reported judgments arising from similar injunction applications, which (he suggested) undermined her case on “desirability” in this case.