The High Court has refused requests to halt the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s processing of appeals in five judicial review cases challenging the use of contractors in preparing negative recommendations by the International Protection Office. It granted a stay in a sixth case, N.A., because it had been selected as a test case.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the ruling on 10 September 2018. The six applicants sought orders, framed as stays or injunctions, that would prevent the tribunal from processing their appeals while they pursued challenges to the contractor process.
The judge said the applicants’ concern that their challenges could become moot if the appeals proceeded had to be considered. However, he said no particular harm beyond speculative harm had been demonstrated from the use of contractors, and described the complaints as purely technical.
He also considered the consequences of pausing the appeals. Hearing them would allow the tribunal to perform its statutory role, including providing a full rehearing where an appeal was unsuccessful at the initial stage. The judge cited the risk that a wave of similar challenges could obstruct the protection system and create a substantial backlog if appeals were held until test cases were decided. The respondents’ counsel had told the court that the tribunal could hear appeals within months and that earlier long delays had been cleared.
The court had added the International Protection Appeals Tribunal as a notice party in all six cases during the hearing. The judge concluded that the balance of convenience and justice weighed heavily against stays in cases of this kind, except for test cases where there was a public interest in preventing the issue from becoming moot.
In N.A.’s case, the tribunal was restrained from further processing the appeal on the applicant’s undertaking to progress the judicial review expeditiously and, if unsuccessful, to apply for leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court, whether or not leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also sought. The court refused stay or injunction relief in the other five cases. The ruling concerned interim relief; it did not determine the underlying contractor challenge.