[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Das, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2084 (Admin) (12 May 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2084.html Cite as: [2009] EWHC 2084 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		12th May 2009

1. DAVID HOLGATE QC: It is not the practice of the court to deal with academic issues or issues which do not arise on the facts of a particular case, save in the most exceptional circumstances. Part of the reason for that is the necessity to avoid court time being used in dealing with academic matters, and also the desirability that points of principle will be determined by reference to a factual context.
2. So far as ground one is concerned, given the concessions made by the Secretary of State in this particular matter, the claimant does not indeed have any interest herself in the resolution of that issue, because she will receive all the relief that she could have obtained when initiating these proceedings and will indeed receive a certificate. For those reasons, I am afraid I will not deal with ground one.
3. That then leaves the question of the order which should be made by the court. The decision of the Secretary of State is quashed on ground two solely. What about costs, please?
4. MR MALIK: May I ask for an order that the defendant pay the claimant's costs of these proceedings, given that it was only yesterday when she conceded that she was willing to grant the approval to the claimant.
5. DAVID HOLGATE QC: Yes. You are not legally aided?
6. MR MALIK: No, my Lord. The claimant is privately paying for those proceedings.
7. DAVID HOLGATE QC: What do you say, Miss Broadfoot?
8. MISS BROADFOOT: I cannot object to an order for costs, certainly up to yesterday. That was the suggestion in the correspondence bundle. In so far as the costs of today are concerned, I do not go so far as to say that we ought to have an order for costs of today, but, in my submission, given the correspondence, the appropriate order would be no order for costs in respect of today, but the Secretary of State to pay the claimant's costs on a standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed, up until the end of May.
9. DAVID HOLGATE QC: I should ask: what time was the fax from the Treasury Solicitor offering to concede the matter sent?
10. MISS BROADFOOT: I will check that, my Lord, if you give me a moment.
11. DAVID HOLGATE QC: The other question for Mr Malik is when was your brief delivered to appear in the case?
12. MR MALIK: My Lord, I was given instructions at 4 o'clock yesterday. I was told then by my instructing solicitors about the correspondence.
13. DAVID HOLGATE QC: Did you do the skeleton argument in this case?
14. MR MALIK: Yes, my Lord.
15. DAVID HOLGATE QC: Well, we will find out, first of all, when the fax was sent.
16. MISS BROADFOOT: My Lord, I am told it was about 1.30.
17. DAVID HOLGATE QC: So early afternoon. Did you have any inkling, Mr Malik, that this would go short yesterday morning? Did you have any idea that the Secretary of State was going to concede yesterday afternoon? As of yesterday morning, were you briefed to appear in this court?
18. MR MALIK: Indeed, my Lord.
19. DAVID HOLGATE QC: In that case, the Secretary of State will pay the costs of the claim, including today's costs, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
20. MISS BROADFOOT: Yes, my Lord.
21. DAVID HOLGATE QC: Thank you. We are without an associate at the moment, so before I go back a long distance to the place from whence I came this morning to be here, I will wait, on the basis that someone is coming to make sure the order is drawn up in the right way.