The High Court has refused the Minister for Justice and Equality leave to appeal a costs order and an interlocutory injunction in a judicial review concerning deportation orders.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 3 October 2016 that a party seeking to challenge an order in proceedings governed by a leave-to-appeal procedure must obtain leave where that order, considered on its own, would require it. Leave granted to another party does not automatically allow a cross-appeal.
The underlying judicial review was brought by K.R.A. and B.M.A., a minor suing through her mother and next friend, K.R.A. In the substantive decision, the court refused their application to quash a decision not to revoke deportation orders under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. In a subsequent decision, the applicants received leave to appeal that refusal to the Court of Appeal under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, along with their costs. The injunction had restrained deportation while that appeal was pending.
The Minister sought leave to appeal the costs order. The judge found that the proposed challenge did not raise a point of law of exceptional public importance. He also concluded that an appeal would not be in the public interest, referring to the Minister’s conduct of the proceedings. The judgment lists instances in which the respondent had made concessions or asked the court to decide issues during the hearing, then raised objections or changed position after the hearing had concluded, despite earlier representations having been relied on. The judge said there was no solid basis for finding that the respondent was not bound by those representations.
The court also refused a certificate to appeal the injunction, without deciding whether such a certificate was necessary. The judge said the Minister could instead apply to the High Court to discharge the injunction, where the issue could be heard with submissions from both parties.
The injunction was varied to restrain deportation until further order, replacing the earlier term that it continue until the appeal was determined. The court listed the injunction for submissions on 10 October 2016 on whether it should continue or be discharged, and said it would hear whether the matter should be reconsidered by the same judge or heard afresh by the judge in charge of the Asylum List.