Nisar (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)

Описание: Tuesday 28 October 2025

(1) Nisar (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)
(2) Mammedov (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)

Before Lord Justice Bean, Vice=President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Lady Justice King
Lord Justice Warby

(1) Appeal against the order of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 21 March 2024 refusing the application for an order as to costs.

The appellants applied for a visa to the UK which was refused. The respondent agreed to make a decision by 21 August 2023, which was missed by one day and on the same day proceedings were lodged. On 13 September 2023 the parties entered into a consent order to withdraw the application and submissions to be made on costs.

The Judge found that both parties were at fault, having not communicated with each other over a days delay, therefore both could have taken steps to avoid the proceedings. Therefore no costs were ordered.

(2) Appeal against the decision of of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 18 June 2025 making no order as to costs.

The applicant challenged the Home Office’s delay in making a decision on his entry clearance application. Although the application had been refused twice in late 2024, the Home Office had agreed to reconsider it following pre-action letters. However, after failing to issue a decision by the agreed deadline, the appellant filed for judicial review. The Home Office then issued a decision.

The appellant sought costs, arguing he had achieved the outcome sought. The Home Office opposed, citing non-compliance with the pre-action protocol and arguing that the judicial review did not directly lead to the decision.

Judge Hirst acknowledged that the appellant had obtained the remedy sought and could be considered the successful party. However, due to the appellant’s failure to properly follow the pre-action protocol specifically, not issuing a new pre-action letter addressing the delay the judge made no order as to costs.