Matthew Howarth, Instructed by the Government Legal Department, Successfully Represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department in this Immigration Judicial Review

Roslyn Scott, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 3110 (Admin)

Matthew Howarth, instructed by the Government Legal Department, successfully represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department in this Judicial Review immigration case at the Royal Courts of Justice on 3 December 2024.

The case, heard by Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith, involved a challenge by US national Roslyn Scott against the Home Office’s handling of her applications for leave to remain in the UK.

Key points of the case:
a) Ms Scott had made two separate applications: one for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) and another under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).

b) The Home Office deemed the ILR application void when the EUSS application was submitted.

c) Ms Scott challenged this decision and the lack of notification about the voiding.

Mr Howarth successfully argued that:
1. The Immigration Rules, specifically Rule 34BB and Appendix EU, allowed for the automatic voiding of the ILR application.
2. There was no legal requirement to notify Scott of this voiding in accordance with the Immigration Rules (at the time).
The court dismissed both grounds of Ms Scott’s claim, ruling in favour of the Home Office on the following points:

Voiding of Applications – The court upheld the Secretary of State’s interpretation that submitting a subsequent EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) application automatically voids a previous undetermined application for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). This is based on Rule 34BB of the Immigration Rules, read in conjunction with paragraph EU10(2) as it existed in February 2022.

Notification Requirements – The court ruled that there was no legal obligation for the Secretary of State to notify an applicant when their previous application is voided due to a subsequent EUSS application. This interpretation stems from paragraph EU10(2) of Appendix EU, which disapplied certain notification requirements in Rule 34BB for EUSS applications.

Distinguishing from Previous Case Law – The judge distinguished this case from R (ota Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] AC 604, noting that the voiding of an application is an automatic consequence of the rules rather than a discretionary decision requiring notification.

Implications – This ruling clarifies the interaction between different types of immigration applications and the notification requirements under the Immigration Rules. It emphasises that applicants must be aware of the potential consequences of submitting multiple applications, as subsequent applications may automatically void previous ones without explicit notification. The decision also highlights the importance of considering the specific version of the Immigration Rules in force at the relevant time, as changes to these rules can significantly impact the interpretation and application of immigration policies.

Matthew Howarth practices extensively in Public Law and Immigration Judicial Review. He has ranked as a leading Junior in the Legal 500.

The case has been reported and is on Baili and National archive: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/3110