Reported Cases

European Court of Human Rights

A.M. and A.A.M v the United Kingdom (Applications nos. 33636/19 and 42669/19)
Successfully challenged the SSHD’s decisions to refuse the applicants, mother and daughter, applications for leave to remain in the UK as their removal from the UK would have violated Article 3 (Medical cases) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The outcome of the case can be found here: A.M. AND A.A.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Supreme Court

Hemmati & Ors v SSHD [2019] UKSC 56
This was a test case challenging the detention of asylum seekers under Article 28 and 2(n) of Dublin III Convention. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the SSHD appeal and ruled that all asylum seekers came to the UK between 1 January 2014 and 15 March 2017, were detained under Dublin III Regulation by the SSHD without any legal basis. The Supreme Court also ruled that those asylum seekers were entitled to damages for false imprisonment. This judgment was significant as it is understood that the SSHD detained thousands asylum seekers in the UK unlawfully.

Judgment can be found here R (on the application of Hemmati and others) (AP) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) - UK Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

MA (Iraq) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 1467
Asylum appeal concerning country guidance on returns to Iraq and how the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) should approach appeals on a point of law.

Judgment can be found here MA (Iraq) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 1467 (11 October 2021)

HK (Iraq) and Others v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1871
This was a test case challenging removal to Bulgaria under Dublin III Regulation. The claim was dismissed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal but it was the first time that removal to Bulgaria was considered by the Court under Dublin III Regulation in the UK.

Judgment can be found here HK (Iraq) & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871 (23 November 2017)

BA (Eritrea) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 458 Successfully challenged the SSHD’s decision to detain the client who was a victim of torture at the High Court. The SSHD applied for permission to the Court of Appeal and permission was granted. This case was linked with another case and it became a test case on Detention Rule 35 reports prepared by medical practitioners for detainees at the detention centres. The Court of Appeal gave guidance on how to treat such reports. 

Judgment can be found here BA (Eritrea) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 458 (12 May 2016)

MK (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 643 Successfully challenged the High Court’s decision in regard to the costs of the judicial review proceeding. The judicial review claim was wholly successful and the SSHD did not agree to pay the Claimant’s costs. Parties agreed to make written submissions to the High Court and the High Court Judge ruled no order as to costs. That decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal and permission was granted by the Court of Appeal at the oral hearing. Subsequently, the SSHD agreed to pay the Claimant’s costs.

Judgment can be found here MK (Afghanistan), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 643 (20 May 2015)

High Court
Imafidon v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1790 (Admin)
Successfully challenged the SSHD’s decision to set removal directions against the Claimant, to refuse to grant him retained right of residence and detain him unlawfully. This case had the most unfortunate history and the unlawful detention claim was very complex. The Court also ruled in this case that the EEA rights are declaratory.

Judgment can be found here Imafidon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1790 (Admin) (07 April 2015)