[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 >> Saqib, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 984 (Admin) (11 March 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/984.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 984 (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
		11 March 2015

1. HER HONOUR JUDGE WALDEN-SMITH: This is a substantive hearing of an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 24 April 2013 refusing Mr Saqib entry clearance as a Tier 4 (General) student.
2. That application for entry clearance was refused because the Applicant's original sponsor, St John's College, was not listed on the Tier 4 sponsor register and while the Defendant endeavoured to take funds for the fee from the bank account, details of which were given by the Claimant, that transaction was denied.
3. The Claimant says that the Defendant's decision was unlawful and irrational as the Secretary of State had failed to consider the current sponsor and had failed to apply their policy of providing the Claimant with an additional 60 days to find a new sponsor.
4. Those issues were raised in the permission hearing. Lewis J gave permission to judicially review the decision on 11 April of last year. There was a failure on the part of the Claimant to abide by the orders made, but Master Gidden on 13 August gave relief from sanction.
5. The brief facts of this matter are that the Claimant is a Pakistani national born on 27 July 1985 and was granted leave to enter as a Tier 4 (General) student on 11 July 2010. The application for judicial review is, as I have said, to challenge the decision to refuse to grant leave to remain.
6. What has happened subsequently and subsequent to permission being granted is that there has been some confusion on the part of the Claimant as to what the position is that he was taking. It has only been in the past few days that there has been some clarity.
7. A letter was received -- and I understand this was also copied to the Defendant -- in the Administrative Court office on 9 March from the Claimant's solicitors, who are now West Ham Solicitors, saying that they were instructed to act on behalf of Mr Saqib and that he had given instructions that he did not wish to proceed with the application, that decision, it being made clear by West Ham Solicitors, being of his own volition. A statement was provided, again copied to the Secretary of State, saying that whilst his legal representatives were willing to proceed with the judicial review application, he himself has decided not to proceed with it.
8. In those circumstances, him having given by that statement, it seems to me, notice of withdrawal of his application for judicial review, I will dismiss this claim.
9. Costs arise as a consequence of that dismissal. It appears from his statement that Mr Saqib had been advised as to consequences of the application being withdrawn by being shown a costs schedule on behalf of the Secretary of State. That costs schedule provides details of how this matter has been dealt with. It, of course, includes additional work, permission having been granted to judicially review, on detailed grounds and a skeleton in anticipation of this hearing.
10. So far as the costs schedule is concerned, I will summarily assess those costs and make these small amendments.
11. On the attendances on clients, I am going to allow 3 hours for letters out. I am not going to interfere with the telephone attendances on the client, nor am I going to interfere with the attendance on others, namely the attendances on counsel and the court.
12. Similarly, I will allow the 1.2 hours that is claimed for letters out on attendances on opponents. I can appreciate, given the way this has been conducted by and on behalf of the Claimant, that costs will have been incurred there.
13. So far as the costs and work done on documents is concerned what is claimed is £1,338. I am going to allow £1,278. I am not going to allow additional costs for a new file holder to read in.
14. Subject to those two amendments, I will allow the costs as claimed. There is obviously VAT on that, so if I could ask counsel to work out the final figure on that --

15. MISS FERNANDES: Yes.

16. HER HONOUR JUDGE WALDEN-SMITH: -- and include that in the order.

17. MISS FERNANDES: Can I just clarify, my Lady? So it is letters out on the first page --

18. HER HONOUR JUDGE WALDEN-SMITH: Yes.

19. MISS FERNANDES: -- from 4.5 to 3.

20. HER HONOUR JUDGE WALDEN-SMITH: Yes.

21. MISS FERNANDES: Then on the third page, the top figure goes from £1,338 to £1,278.

22. HER HONOUR JUDGE WALDEN-SMITH: Exactly.

23. MISS FERNANDES: Those are the only changes.

24. HER HONOUR JUDGE WALDEN-SMITH: Those are the only changes. Other than that, I will allow those costs.

25. MISS FERNANDES: Thank you.

26. HER HONOUR JUDGE WALDEN-SMITH: In the usual course, whilst enforcement I can understand may be a little difficult, I would say that that figure is to be paid within 14 days of today.

15. Thank you very much, Miss Fernandes.

28. MISS FERNANDES: Thank you.