The Court of Appeal found that an almost 23-month wait for a decision on a residence-card review was inordinate and breached the Minister for Justice’s duty to decide within a reasonable time. It allowed Raymond Holland’s appeal and proposed a declaration to that effect, while leaving his separate claims under EU law undecided.
The appeal concerned proceedings Holland brought in December 2018 seeking an order compelling the Minister to decide a review of the refusal of a residence card for his stepdaughter, Nguyen Thi Kim Tháo. He also sought a declaration that the delay breached his right to an effective remedy and to good administration under EU law.
The Minister decided the review on 29 March 2019, before the High Court hearing, and upheld the refusal. The High Court later held that the proceedings had become moot: an order compelling a decision was no longer needed, and a declaration would serve no useful purpose. Holland appealed that ruling.
The Court of Appeal agreed the proceedings had become moot once the review decision issued, but exercised its discretion to hear the appeal. It said the delay was significant and the issue could affect other cases. The court stressed that the six-month limit for an initial residence-card decision was informative when assessing a review’s reasonable duration, but did not set an automatic six-month deadline for reviews. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances, including the inquiries required and time taken to provide information.
The Minister said the review involved dependency evidence, changes in Holland’s employment and health circumstances, and a chronological queue of applications. The court found that the material in this case was modest and raised no particular complexity. After further information was provided in May 2018, no more was requested or supplied, yet the decision took another 11 months. Even treating that information as starting a new application, the court found the further wait unreasonable.
The court concluded that the delay breached the Minister’s duty to decide the review within a reasonable time. It said an order compelling a decision was no longer required and proposed a declaration limited to that breach. It made no finding on whether the delay also breached Holland’s asserted EU-law rights to an effective remedy or good administration. The judgment also proposed that the Minister pay Holland’s appeal costs, subject to a possible supplemental hearing if the Minister sought to contest costs within 14 days.