FXJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1357
Simon Aruchanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department
10 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 282 (KB)
High Court
A refugee's claim that the government didn't confirm his status, leading to problems, wasn't thrown out of court. The judge said it's possible the government owed him a duty to confirm his status, even though there are still many hurdles to prove the case. The refugee's request to remain anonymous was also denied.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Aruchanga) seeks damages for the Home Secretary's failure to confirm his refugee status, leading to loss of benefits and exacerbation of PTSD.
- •Claimant arrived in the UK in 1995, asylum granted in 1997 but documentation lost in 1999.
- •Subsequent requests for confirmation were unanswered, leading to deportation orders and detention.
- •In 2018, the Home Secretary questioned his refugee status due to convictions, leading to further detention.
- •In 2019, the Home Secretary acknowledged his 1997 refugee status.
- •Claims include negligence, breach of Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8), and breach of Data Protection Acts.
Legal Principles
Duty of care in negligence for public authorities
Caparo Industries Ltd v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; Poole Borough Council v GN and Another [2019] UKSC 25; R(Husson) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 329
Assumption of responsibility
Poole Borough Council v GN and Another [2019] UKSC 25
Rights of refugees under the 1951 Convention
R (ST) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 12
Outcomes
Claim in negligence not struck out.
It is arguable that the Home Secretary owed a duty of care to confirm the claimant's status, given their unique position in granting and confirming it. The foreseeability of harm, proximity, and fairness of imposing a duty are arguable.
Claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Data Protection Acts not struck out.
These claims are closely linked to the negligence claim and stand or fall together.
Application for anonymity refused.
Proceedings have been ongoing for a long time; no previous application for anonymity; limited purpose of anonymity at this stage; medical reports don't substantiate the claim.
Similar Cases
NS, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office
[2023] EWHC 2675 (Admin)
SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin)
ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
FMA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1579 (Admin)