HJT Training held a very successful session on the transfer of judicial reviews to the Upper Tribunal on 30 September 2011. Speakers included Deputy President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Mark Ockelton, and Jawaid Luqmani. You can see Colin Yeo’s useful blog with links to key resources here.

We learned the following:

1)     There will be a form equivalent to the N461;

2)     Fees will almost certainly be the same;

3)     The facility to give an undertaking on fees will likely be the same (i.e. in cases of late service and/or with imminent removal);

4)     Listing of applications for urgent renewals of oral permission hearings (i.e. following an order of renewal no bar to removal) will be managed by the Administrative Court office who will be provided with a list of dates by the UT;

5)     CO references will be provided on issue of FC in the UT and should have the same effect for the purposes of EIG Chapter 60 therefore;

6)     Replies to an Acknowledgment of Service were thought to be feasible under the UT’s general case management powers (rule 5 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008) and so should include on their face a request for permission to present the same by reference to that rule;

7)     Particular Senior Immigration Judges will be identified to deal with fresh claim judicial reviews;

8)     Whether there is a facility to appeal a refusal of interim relief is a matter that requires further thought.

At our annual judicial review conference on 6 December 2011 we will be updating delegates on the practical operation of the Tribunal’s new fresh claim jurisdiction as shown by the first few months since its inception. Jawaid Luqmani will provide information on the latest developments on public funding, and other experienced practitioners will discuss tactics and strategies, addressing recurring issues from urgent removal cases to interim relief, and moving on to address topical challenges such as unlawful detention. There will also be an update on challenges to government decisions involving the PBS via the Administrative Court route, and on litigating fresh asylum and human rights claims, the treatment of children, “clearly unfounded” certificates, family life, and age assessment.