U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 811
C7 v Secrtary of State for the Home Department
13 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 265
Court of Appeal
Someone won a case to get their citizenship back but didn't get their legal fees paid. The court decided that the special court that heard the case doesn't have the power to make the government pay those fees, and even if it did, the government didn't act wrongly.
Key Facts
- •C7 appealed SIAC's decision not to award him costs after a successful appeal against a deprivation of British citizenship order.
- •The appeal concerned SIAC's power to award costs under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
- •SIAC held it lacked the power to award costs, and even if it did, would only do so in cases of unreasonable conduct.
- •C7 argued SIAC's designation as a superior court of record implied inherent cost-awarding powers.
- •The Secretary of State argued SIAC's jurisdiction was limited by statute.
Legal Principles
Costs in superior courts are generally at the court's discretion (unless restricted by statute or rules of court).
Senior Courts Act 1981, section 51
Superior courts of record have inherent jurisdiction unless expressly or implicitly excluded.
Guardians of West Ham Union v Churchwardens and Overseers
A court's implied powers are limited to those necessary for doing justice; a cost-awarding power isn't inherently necessary.
Judge's reasoning in Decision 2
Statutory bodies have only the powers expressly conferred or necessarily implied; implied powers are construed narrowly.
R (Kalonga) v Croydon London Borough Council
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights; however, different treatment may be justified.
R(S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
SIAC does not have an inherent or implied power to award costs under section 2B of the 1997 Act. Even if such power existed, the judge's decision not to award costs due to the Secretary of State's conduct not being unreasonable was justified.
Permission to rely on Article 14 ECHR refused.
The argument was not raised in the grounds of appeal, the skeleton argument raised it faintly, it wasn't argued below, and even if successful, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.