Court of Appeal to Hear Challenge on Adequacy of Asylum Accommodation at Wethersfield Barracks (16 December 2025)

Permission has been granted for a significant appeal to the Court of Appeal in R (MJ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, a test case concerning the lawfulness of using camp-style accommodation at the former RAF barracks in Wethersfield, Essex, to house asylum seekers.

The client, represented by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, is a refugee who fled Afghanistan and has a history of significant mental illness. He was accommodated at Wethersfield by the Home Office between 21 September 2023 and 5 March 2024, under powers exercised pursuant to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. He was relocated following an interim order made by McGowan J on 1 March 2024.

The claim challenged Mould J’s decision to dismiss the Appellant’s application for judicial review. The Appellant sought a declaration that the statutory duty under sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and Regulation 5 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2005, to provide adequate accommodation is not met by the use of camp-style accommodation at Wethersfield.

The Appellant’s case was identified as a test case and consolidated with three other claims raising broader public law issues about the systems used to allocate asylum seekers to Wethersfield, alongside individual challenges. A number of other cases were stayed behind the grouped claims. As a result, the High Court judgment was intended to be, and remains, the determinative judicial consideration of the legality of the Home Office’s use of Wethersfield as asylum accommodation.

While Mould J dismissed all aspects of the Appellant’s claim, limited declarations were granted in the consolidated claims. These related to (i) the individual circumstances of other claimants, and (ii) the suitability criteria contained in the Home Office’s Allocation of Asylum Accommodation Policy (version 12, published 27 March 2024), in so far as those criteria engaged the public sector equality duty. That issue did not arise in the Appellant’s claim, meaning the substantive issues he raised remain live.

The Appellant sought permission to appeal on three grounds:

• Ground 1: That the Judge erred in directing himself that the Respondent’s evidence should be accepted unless it was internally contradictory, inherently implausible, or inconsistent with incontrovertible evidence, rather than also considering whether it was inconsistent, on balance, with other written evidence.
• Ground 2: That the Judge applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Respondent was discharging her duties under sections 95 and 96 of the 1999 Act and Regulation 5 of the 2005 Regulations, by asking whether the system was incapable of providing adequate accommodation, rather than whether the provision of accommodation at Wethersfield created a significant risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR.
• Ground 3: That the Judge failed to address the argument that the Home Office’s suitability criteria do not direct caseworkers to ask the correct legal question—namely whether the accommodation would be deleterious to an asylum seeker’s health such that it no longer meets the statutory requirement of adequacy. Alternatively, that the Judge erred in his interpretation of “adequate” accommodation under sections 95 and 96, and in his assessment of the suitability criteria in the Allocation Policy.

In seeking permission to appeal, the Appellant argued that the combined effect of the approach taken to Grounds 1 and 2 would make systems-based challenges virtually impossible to succeed. Even where a system gives rise to serious harm, a claimant would have to show—by reference to the Respondent’s own evidence—that the system was incapable of operating lawfully, subject to an exceptionally high evidential threshold. The Appellant submitted that no system, including those previously found unlawful by the courts, could realistically meet such a standard.

On 16 December 2025, Lord Justice Singh granted permission to appeal on all three grounds. While noting that the judgment of Mould J was careful and thorough, the Court of Appeal found that the grounds have a real prospect of success and that, in any event, the appeal raises important issues. There are therefore compelling reasons for the Court of Appeal to consider the case.

The appeal is being led by Lily Parrott, Thomas Munns, and Rhiannon Croker, of Duncan Lewis Solicitors’ Public Law team. Counsel instructed are Alex Goodman KC, Miranda Butler, and Charles Bishop of Landmark Chambers.

Read the full judgment: R (MJ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

About Duncan Lewis Solicitors – Public Law Team

Duncan Lewis Solicitors is one of the UK’s leading public law firms, with a nationally recognised Public Law department acting in complex and high-profile judicial review challenges. The team has extensive experience in cases concerning asylum support, immigration detention, human rights, and systemic failures in government decision-making, and regularly acts in test cases before the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court.