The High Court made no order as to costs in a judicial review case brought by British citizen Shakeel Ahmed Dar over a delay in deciding a review of his mother’s residence-card application. The proceedings had become moot after the decision issued, leaving costs as the only issue for the court to decide.
Mr Dar applied for a residence card for his mother on 25 August 2016. The application was refused on 12 June 2017, and he requested a review on 23 June that year. In October 2018, the Department of Justice told his solicitor the review was in a queue and that processing times could vary.
On 28 November 2018, his solicitors sought a decision and said they would issue proceedings if one was not notified within ten days. Mr Dar filed judicial review proceedings on 6 December, before that period expired, seeking an order requiring the Minister to decide the review and a declaration that his right to an effective remedy had been breached.
The review decision had issued the previous day, 7 December, and Mr Dar received it on 10 December. It was unfavourable. He later brought separate proceedings challenging that decision. The High Court granted leave in the delay case on 10 December, before the decision came to his lawyers’ attention.
Justice Richard Humphreys heard submissions on costs from counsel for both sides. The applicant’s counsel accepted that the decision pre-dated the proceedings and therefore had no causal connection to them, while arguing that the pre-action letter and the reasonableness of bringing proceedings supported an award of costs. She also suggested the threat of proceedings may have prompted the decision.
The judge said the Department’s correspondence indicated the review was in a queue to be processed in the normal way. He also noted that proceedings were filed before the ten-day period in the warning letter had expired. Reasonableness in bringing a mandamus case after delay was not, by itself, enough to justify costs in proceedings that had become moot, he said.
Finding insufficient special factors to displace the default approach, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs. It did not determine the challenge to the unfavourable review decision in this case.