News

In a significant judicial review victory, the Public Law team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors successfully represented the applicant, a lead Core Participant in the Brook House Inquiry, in challenging the unlawful delay by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) in determining his outstanding asylum claim. The claim had remained undecided for over seven years, with serious procedural and administrative failings acknowledged by the Tribunal.

The case involved complex and unique procedural developments, including a rare instance where the Judge ordered the Home Office to serve a decision on the asylum claim prior to the substantive JR decision. The Tribunal ultimately issued a declaration of unlawful delay, recognising a prolonged failure by the Home Office to determine the applicant’s protection claim submitted in February 2018.

Background of the Case

The applicant arrived in the UK in January 2014 and claimed asylum, which was refused later that year. His appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in 2015. In the years that followed, the applicant faced a series of legal and personal challenges, including a period of immigration detention at Brook House IRC in 2017, during which he was subjected to serious mistreatment by detention staff. These incidents were later exposed in a BBC Panorama investigation and became the subject of the Brook House Inquiry, where the applicant was a key participant.

After his release from detention, the applicant submitted detailed further submissions in February 2018, advancing new asylum and Article 3 ECHR grounds based on his bisexuality and perceived evasion of compulsory military service in his country of origin. Despite numerous attempts to secure a decision, the Home Office failed to act on the submissions. In July 2021, the submissions were administratively "voided" due to an internal error, but this was neither communicated to the applicant nor rectified until over three years later. It was only in December 2024, after repeated correspondence and pre-action engagement, that the error was acknowledged and the claim reinstated, with a promise of a decision within three months.

That deadline passed without a decision, and in April 2025, the applicant, instructed by Duncan Lewis, initiated judicial review proceedings. The claim was expedited, and a rolled-up hearing was listed for late April. In an unusual step, the judge ordered that a decision on the asylum claim be made and served before any final ruling on the judicial review.

Grounds of Challenge

Two grounds were advanced:

1. That the ongoing delay in determining the February 2018 submissions was unlawful;
2. That the failure to decide within the Home Office’s own three-month timeframe breached a procedural legitimate expectation.

The Tribunal found that the delay between July 2021 and December 2024, as well as from December 2024 to the present (up to the date of the decision in May 2025), was unlawful. Although the court held that the delay was not “manifestly unreasonable” and had not caused clear detriment sufficient to establish a standalone breach of public law, the judge recognised serious administrative failures, including a breach of the duty of candour.

The claim that the applicant had a procedural legitimate expectation was rejected, as the court found no clear or unambiguous promise had been made by the Home Office. Nevertheless, the court granted a formal declaration of unlawful delay, emphasising the importance of recognising government accountability in the face of significant bureaucratic failings.

Final Orders 

1. The Applicant was granted permission to apply for judicial review and the judicial review claim is allowed.
2. It was declared that the Respondent unlawfully delayed the determination of the Applicant’s further submissions between 19 July 2021 and 24 February 2025, and again between 19 March 2025 and 1 May 2025.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant’s reasonable costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
4. There was to be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s legal aid costs.
5. As there was no application for permission to appeal, permission was refused on the ground that there were no arguable errors of law in the judgment.

This case highlights systemic delays and administrative dysfunction within the Home Office’s asylum system, especially for applicants with complex legal and personal circumstances. It is particularly significant due to the applicant’s central role in the Brook House Inquiry and the extent of the Home Office's delay in responding to protection-based representations.

The procedural direction by the Tribunal, ordering the Home Office to issue a decision on the asylum claim ahead of the permission and substantive JR findings, marks a rare and instructive intervention. The case also reinforces the judiciary’s willingness to scrutinise and call out protracted and unjustified delays in asylum decision-making, even where other public law thresholds (such as legitimate expectation or manifest unreasonableness) are not met.

The Instructing Team

Nicholas Hughes is a solicitor in the Public Law department He has extensive experience in immigration and asylum, judicial review, and public inquiries.

For advice or assistance on any public law matter, contact Nicholas via email at nicholashu@duncanlewis.com, or by telephone at 02031141138.

Counsel was Alex Schymyck of Garden Court Chambers.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors

Duncan Lewis Solicitors Public Law team, ranked in Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 UK directories, has a broad practice representing both privately and publicly funded (legal aid) clients in matters involving immigration; asylum and human rights and deportation matters, with a niche practice in immigration and civil liberties claimant judicial review matters. They have significant practice in challenging delays in Home Office decision-making, unlawful immigration detention cases with high net claims for damages and challenging immigration removal decisions, particularly third country removal cases.