Challenging A Refusal of Permission To Appeal by The Upper Tribunal

Challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal
1 of 12
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/challenging-a-refusal-of-permission-...
Search...
Updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law

ABOUT
CONTACT
ARCHIVES
MEMBERS
COURSES
EBOOKS
You are here: Home / Procedure / Challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper
Tribunal
Challenging a refusal of permission to

appeal by the Upper Tribunal
16 FEBRUARY 2015 BY DESMOND RUTLEDGE
This website uses cookies. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
2 of 12
This piece started life as a practice note for welfare benefits cases but the same principles are
transferrable to the immigration jurisdiction so we thought it would be helpful to share it here on
Free Movement as well.
If permission to appeal against a decision of a
Contents
First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is

refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative
Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not
be able to appeal that decision. This is
because it is an excluded decision under s.
13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal
The legal test for permission

Public funding
The procedure
Before the proceedings are issued
Lodging the claim at Court
After the claim has been lodged
After the decision on permission has been made
Costs
has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of

permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy
available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014]
EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an
Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).
While there is also provision for the Upper Tribunal to set aside its decision based on a procedural
irregularity before it under rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI:
2698), the circumstances in which this rule will succeed are extremely limited. Moreover, where
the claimant decides to make a set aside application to the Upper Tribunal, there is no provision
to disapply the 16-day deadline for applying to the High Court for judicial review.
The legal test for permission

The legal test for judicial review of an Upper Tribunals decision to refuse to grant permission to
appeal to itself was considered by the Supreme Court in R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal and ors
[2011] UKSC 28. The Court decided that the second appeals test would provide a proportionate
check, and the test is now part of the Civil Procedure rules under CPR rule 54.7A. These are
different from the normal rules for judicial review in so far as:
the usual deadline of 3 months is reduced to 16 days (54.7A(3);
a higher threshold applies: (54.7A(7); and
there is no right to an oral renewal of the application: (54.7A(8).
The following checklist sets out the factors that need to be considered to determine whether the
CPR 54.7A requirement has been met in a particular case:
(1) Is there an arguable case which has a reasonable prospect of success?
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
3 of 12
(2) Does the appeal raise an important point of principle?

(i) Is it an issue where the outcome is capable of benefiting others besides the claimant?
(ii) Is it an issue on which there is no decided authority or where the authorities disagree?
(3) Or is there some other compelling reason to allow the appeal to proceed?
(i) Is the decision perverse or otherwise plainly wrong?
(ii) Has there been a procedural irregularity amounting to a fundamental unfairness?
For further judicial guidance on the Cart criteria see:
Paragraphs 130-131 of Lord Dyson SCJs judgment in R(Cart) v the UT [2011] UKSC 28
Paragraph 35 of Carnwarth LJs (as he then was) judgment in PR (Sri Lanka) v the SSHD
[2011] EWCA Civ 988;
Paragraphs 11 to 32 of Sullivan LJs judgment in JD (Congo) & Ors v Secretary of State for
the Home Department & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 327.
If the application for permission to judicial review the Upper Tribunals decision is refused an
appeal is made to the Court of Appeal, the legal test for permission is the same, namely (i) does
the appeal raise an important point of principle or practice? or (ii) is there some other compelling
reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it (CPR rule 52.13)?
Public funding
Judicial review remains in scope under paragraph 19(2)(a) of Schedule 1, Part 1 to LASPO.
Accordingly, work done on a public law challenge by way of judicial review of an Upper Tribunals
decision to refuse permission comes under the Public Law category. Otherwise, the work can be
covered by the Immigration Law category, in so far as the public law challenge relates to the
underlying substance of the case: see Category Definitions in the Standard Civil Contract 2013,
Category Definitions paragraph 13.
However, from 22 April 2014, work done on an application for permission for judicial review will not
be paid unless the Court grants permission for the application to proceed, subject to a
discretionary payment by the Legal Aid Agency (The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment)
(No. 3) Regulations 2014 (SI 607). It should be noted that this does not affect work done prior to
the issuing of proceedings, such as advising on the merits.
The procedure
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
4 of 12
refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal are set out below.
Before the proceedings are issued

Proceedings must be commenced within 16 days (instead of the usual deadline of 3 months (Civil
Procedure Rules CPR rule 54.7A(3)). There is no need to comply with the pre-action protocol as
the defendant the Upper Tribunal does not have the legal power to change the decision being
challenged (see above and paragraph 6 of the judicial review pre-action protocol). The Secretary
of State for Work and Pensions (or HM Revenue and Customs in the case of Tax Credits or Child
Benefit) should be named as an interested party.
If the deadline has been missed, then reasons for the delay in lodging the claim need to be
provided in the application to persuade the Court to extend the deadline because there is a
reasonable excuse for the delay. Difficulties in obtaining public funding or any difficulties the
claimant may have in accessing specialist advice may justify an extension of time; but delay on
the part of the claimants lawyers that cannot be explained will not (see Andrew Finn-Kelcey v
Milton Keynes Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067, at [20]-[29]).
The Upper Tribunal will be the defendant in the action but will normally take no part in the
proceedings. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should be added as an interested
party.
Lodging the claim at Court

When the application for permission to apply for Judicial Review is ready it should be lodged at
the Administrative Court Office which will normally be in London (unless the Upper Tribunal was
sitting in one of the regions, e.g. Cardiff).
The Court Office will only accept the application if there is a claim form (Form N461) (with copies
so these can be served on the defendant and the interested party) and a permission bundle (see
CPR Part 54.6 and Practice Direction 54A, para 5.9). A court fee (currently 140.00) is also
payable.
After the claim has been lodged

After the claim has been lodged with the Administrative Court, a sealed copy of the claim form
(and accompanying documents) must be served on the defendant and the interested party within
7 days of the date of issue (i.e. the date shown on the court seal).
When the interested party has been served with the claim form they should file an
acknowledgment of service (Form N462) in the Administrative Court Office, within 21 days of the
proceedings being served upon them.
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
5 of 12
After the decision on permission has been made

The application for permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review is then considered by a
single judge on the papers.
If the application for permission is successful, then the decision will be quashed after 14 days by
operation of CPR rule 54.7A(9)) and the appeal will then proceed in the Upper Tribunal in the
normal way:
(9) If permission to apply for judicial review is granted

(a) if the Upper Tribunal or any interested party wishes there to be a hearing of
the substantive application, it must make its request for such a hearing no later
than 14 days after service of the order granting permission; and
(b) if no request for a hearing is made within that period, the court will make a
final order quashing the refusal of permission without a further hearing.
If the application for permission is refused, as there is no right to an oral renewal of the
application (CPR rule 54.7A(8)), the only other remedy available is to apply for permission to
appeal to the Court of Appeal. The deadline for an appeal against a refusal of permission is 7
days (CPR rule 52.15(c), Practice Direction 52C, para 5A).
For further general guidance on the procedure for judicial review see:
Administrative Court Guidance Notes on Applying for Judicial Review click here.
Guidance Notes on Completing the Judicial Review Claim (Form N462), April 2013 click
here.
Costs
The general rule as to costs is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the
successful party (CPR rule 44.3(2)(a)). However, no order for costs will usually be made against
the Upper Tribunal if it takes no part in the proceedings (R (Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner
for Birmingham [2004] EWCA Civ 207, para [27]). On the other hand, an interested party will
normally be ordered to pay the claimants costs if they opposed the application for judicial review
(R v Hastings Licensing Justices Ex p. John Lovibond & Sons [1968] 1 WLR 735, cited in Davies
(No 2), at para [13].
Share this:
website
uses
cookies.
We'll
assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.
This
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
6 of 12
Related
FILED UNDER: PROCEDURE

TAGGED WITH: CART, JUDICIAL REVIEW
About Desmond Rutledge

Desmond Rutledge is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers
where he is a member of the public law and the welfare
benefits team. He has in-depth experience in cases where
there is a cross over with immigration and community care
issues. He writes and provides training on welfare benefits
issues and contributed the section on welfare benefits for migrants in Chapter 14 of
Macdonalds Immigration Law and Practice (9th edn) published February 2015.
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
7 of 12
The Free Movement immigration law blog is

written by members of the immigration team at
Garden Court Chambers in London, ranked as
top tier in both Chambers and Partners and The
Legal 500. The editor is Colin Yeo.
SUBSCRIBE TO EMAIL UPDATES

OK
Unlawful detention: 2 CPD
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
8 of 12
David Bolt, the new Chief Inspector of Borders and

Immigration, started work on 1 May 2015. It is now
quite some time since John Vine [Read More...]
3 CPD Obviously Winston Churchill had not had to

deal with the immigration law and rules when coining
that phrase. In this conference we [Read More...]
There are still some firms out there who have not yet
signed up for Free Movement Membership. As an
added incentive, I'm offering a 50% [Read More...]
See older updates
MOST RECENT POSTS
General election 2015

I'm voting Labour today, and I will be spending the
day out campaigning for my local candidate,
Sarah Sackman. No party is Read More >>
TEDx talk video: The Human Cost

of Borders
This is just in from my TEDx talk on the human
cost of borders a couple of weeks ago:
https://youtu.be/O9Hfqc3trhw The editors
Read More >>
New immigration rules for visitors

to the United Kingdom
A new set of rules for visitors to the United
Kingdom has been introduced taking effect on all
applications made on or after 24 Read More
>>
What amounts to a human rights

claim generating a new right of
appeal?
Rights of appeal under the Immigration Act 2014
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
9 of 12
Secretary of State has decided to Read More

>>
POSTS BY TOPIC
Posts by topic
IN THE FORUMS
S65 Immigration Act 2014 Children of
(unmarried) British fathers by Gerard
Harrison
1 hour, 34 minutes ago
RC holder detained by Sonel (BritCits)
17 hours, 12 minutes ago
Webcam interview held at Sheffield for UK
spouse? by Nelam Trewin
18 hours, 33 minutes ago
PERMANENT RESIDENCE CAN TIME
SPENT LOOKING FOR WORK BE INCLUDED?
by Gordon Irving
2 days, 2 hours ago
NHS Surcharge website payment significant
overcharging by IL
2 days, 12 hours ago
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
10 of 12
MEMBERS FEEDBACK
Feedback from the members-only training
courses:

Very useful to have links to relevant

forms. Quiz at the end enabled me to
check my understanding and result
came with feedback as to why my
answer(s) were wrong. A pleasurable
way to obtain CPD.
Alaha Faryl
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
11 of 12
Find out more
LOGIN
Username or E-mail
Password
Remember Me
LOG IN
Lost Password?
Search...
ABOUT
Free Movement was founded by Colin Yeo in
2007 and Colin continues to edit the blog. Other
members of the immigration team at Garden
Court Chambers and some others also
contribute. See About page for more details.
The blog permits 20 page views per month for
free after which you need to sign up for a
membership package. These start at 7.99. For
more details see the membership page.
DISCLAIMER
The information and commentary on this blog is provided free of charge
for information purposes only. The information and commentary does
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29
12 of 12
specific legal advice please see the 'Contact' page.

We try to make sure information is accurate at the date it is published.
Immigration law changes very rapidly, though. The older the blog post on
this site, the more likely it is that there have been legal developments
since it was published.
Views expressed in blog posts are those of the author only, not Garden
Court Chambers as a whole.
Read More
07/05/2015 13:29

Challenging A Refusal of Permission To Appeal by The Upper Tribunal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenging A Refusal of Permission To Appeal by The Upper Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal

Updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law