UK Immigration Court Rules: When Legal Costs Follow Political Decisions in Asylum Cases

In UK immigration judicial review proceedings, legal costs do not automatically follow a political decision or blanket policy reversal by the Home Office. To secure an order for legal costs against the Secretary of State following a withdrawn policy, a claimant must demonstrate that the litigation itself caused the relief obtained, or that their legal grounds possessed distinct public law merit rather than merely coinciding with a political shift.

The Legal Framework of Asylum Inadmissibility and Policy Transitions

To understand how legal costs are decided when asylum policies change, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework governing asylum inadmissibility in the United Kingdom.

Statutory Basis for Inadmissibility

Asylum inadmissibility is governed primarily by sections 80A, 80B, and 80C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, alongside Part 11 of the Immigration Rules (specifically Rules 345A to 345D). Under these provisions, the Secretary of State for the Home Department may declare an asylum claim inadmissible if the applicant has a connection to a safe third country where they could have claimed protection, or if they have passed through a safe third state where protection could reasonably have been sought.

When a claim is treated as inadmissible, the Home Office does not examine the substantive merits of the protection claim within the UK asylum system. Instead, the Third Country Unit issues a formal "Notice of Intent", informing the applicant that their claim is being considered for third-country removal. This places the substantive asylum decision on hold while the Home Office attempts to secure agreement from a third state to receive the individual.

The Migration and Economic Development Partnership and Subsequent Repeals

The Migration and Economic Development Partnership, commonly known as the Rwanda policy, was established to relocate individuals arriving irregularly to the Republic of Rwanda for substantive processing. This arrangement was reinforced by the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and provisions within the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Following political changes and the election of a new government, the operational framework underwent an immediate transition. The policy of removing individuals to Rwanda was formally abandoned. Consequently, thousands of individuals who had been issued Notices of Intent under the partnership, referred to as the MEDP cohort, required their cases to be regularised into the standard domestic asylum processing queue.

Active Inadmissibility Guidance

Although the Rwanda arrangement ceased to operate, sections 80B and 80C of the 2002 Act remain on the statute book. Home Office asylum caseworkers continue to operate under general third-country inadmissibility guidance. If an individual has spent time in a safe third country with which the UK holds a viable returns mechanism, or if they have existing refugee status in a safe state, inadmissibility procedures may still be initiated.

For the vast majority of the historical MEDP cohort, however, the absence of a viable destination country meant the Home Office had to withdraw Notices of Intent and admit claims to the substantive UK asylum process under Paragraph 345B of the Immigration Rules.

---

The Anatomy of an Asylum Judicial Review

When an individual is placed into an inadmissibility process, or left in prolonged procedural limbo without a substantive asylum decision, the primary legal remedy is an application for Judicial Review in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or the High Court (Administrative Court).

[Pre-Action Protocol Letter Sent]
           |
           v
[Home Office Response Window (14 Days)]
           |
   +-------+-------+
   |               |
[Concession]   [Refusal / No Response]
   |               |
   |               v
   |       [Issue Form T480 / N461]
   |               |
   |               v
   |       [Permission Stage (Paper)]
   |               |
   |       +-------+-------+
   |       |               |
   |   [Granted]       [Refused]
   |       |               |
   |       |               v
   |       |       [Oral Renewal Request]
   |       |               |
   |       v               v
   +-->[Substantive Hearing or Consent Order]

The Pre-Action Protocol Stage

Before issuing judicial review proceedings, the claimant must follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. The claimant sends a formal Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) Letter of Claim to the Home Office Litigation Operations team.

The letter must set out:

• The specific decision, act, or failure to act being challenged.
• The precise legal grounds, including breaches of the Immigration Rules, procedural fairness, or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• The specific details of the information sought.
• The exact redress required, such as the withdrawal of a Notice of Intent and admission to the substantive UK asylum process.
• A reasonable time frame for response, typically 14 calendar days.

If the Home Office fails to respond adequately or refuses to provide the requested remedy within the protocol window, the claimant may prepare to file a claim.

Filing the Claim in the Upper Tribunal

Most immigration judicial reviews are within the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UTIAC). The claim is lodged using Form T480 (or Form N461 if initiated in the Administrative Court) and must include:

• The detailed statement of facts and legal grounds.
• A copy of the disputed decision or letter.
• Copies of all pre-action protocol correspondence.
• An application for anonymity directions if the case involves asylum claims, to protect the claimant under Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
• An application for interim relief, if urgent suspension of removal is required.

The Permission Stage

A judicial review claim passes through a paper permission stage. An Upper Tribunal Judge reviews the documentation to establish whether the claim demonstrates an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.

• If permission is granted: The Tribunal issues case management directions leading to a substantive hearing. The Home Office is required to file Detailed Grounds of Defence within 35 days under Upper Tribunal procedural rules.
• If permission is refused on the papers: The claimant may apply within 7 days (or 9 days if notified by post) to renew the application orally at an oral permission hearing.
• If the application is certified as Totally Without Merit (TWM): The claimant cannot renew the application orally in the Upper Tribunal, though an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal may remain available on points of law.

---

The Legal Costs Framework: CPR Part 44 and the Croydon Principles

In public law challenges, the question of who pays the legal costs is often intensely contested, particularly when a case settles before a final substantive hearing.

The General Rule: Costs Follow the Event

Under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 44.2, the court or tribunal retains full discretion regarding whether costs are payable, the amount, and the time for payment. CPR 44.2(2) establishes the starting principle: the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. However, the court may make a different order based on conduct, partial success, or the reasonableness of pursuing particular arguments.

The Leading Authority: R (M) v London Borough of Croydon

The established authority governing costs in settled or conceded judicial review claims is the Court of Appeal decision in R (M) v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWCA Civ 595. Lord Neuberger established three clear categories of settlement outcomes to determine costs allocation:

Category 1: Complete Relief without Compromise

Where a claimant has been granted all the relief sought, either by consent or through unilateral concession by the defendant, the claimant is generally entitled to their full costs. This applies unless the defendant can show a sound reason to depart from the rule, such as the claimant acting unreasonably or failing to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol.

Category 2: Partial Relief or Mixed Outcomes

Where a claimant succeeds only in part, or secures compromise relief that does not grant everything claimed, the court will not automatically award full costs. The judge will investigate the underlying merits and determine whether it was reasonable for the claimant to issue proceedings, often making no order as to costs or awarding a proportionate percentage of costs.

Category 3: Compromise with No Clear Winner

Where the parties settle on terms that do not reflect the underlying legal merits, or where the settlement arises from factors outside the litigation (such as an overarching policy shift or an ex gratia resolution), the typical order is that each party bears their own costs ("no order as to costs").

Causation versus Coincidence in Policy-Driven Concessions

A critical distinction arises when the Home Office concedes an immigration case following a national policy change. The court must assess whether the litigation caused the Home Office to concede the claim (establishing a Category 1 outcome), or whether the concession was merely an incidental consequence of an independent political or executive policy change (falling into Category 3).

If the Home Office alters a policy on political grounds, such as terminating the Rwanda scheme, an individual claimant whose Notice of Intent is withdrawn cannot claim that their judicial review forced that decision. If the underlying claim had no independent legal merit at the time it was filed, the court will refuse to award costs against the Home Office.

---

Judicial Review Cost Outcomes by Scenario

---

Challenging Reservation Clauses and Holding Decisions

Following the abandonment of the Rwanda scheme, the Home Office issued letters to many asylum seekers confirming that inadmissibility action under the MEDP was no longer being pursued. However, these communications frequently contained standard reservation clauses, stating:

"The Secretary of State reserves the right to review this decision and initiate third-country inadmissibility action should circumstances change or fresh arrangements with a safe third country be established."

Many claimants launched judicial review challenges against these reservation clauses, leading to substantial cost disputes.

The Legal Status of Reservation Clauses

In public law, a reservation clause in an administrative letter is generally considered a statement of existing statutory powers rather than a fresh, adverse administrative decision. Under sections 80B and 80C of the 2002 Act, the Secretary of State retains the continuous statutory power to treat a claim as inadmissible if the statutory conditions are met at any point prior to a substantive grant of protection.

Therefore, a letter stating that the Home Office reserves the right to apply future statutory powers does not:

1. Impose an immediate legal detriment upon the claimant.
2. Constitute a fresh Notice of Intent.
3. Prevent the substantive progression of the asylum claim within the UK system.

The Threshold for Substantive Legitimate Expectation

Claimants frequently argued that ministerial statements confirming the end of the Rwanda policy created a substantive legitimate expectation that their claims would be decided in the UK without any residual reservation of third-country removal.

To establish a breach of substantive legitimate expectation in immigration law, the claimant must prove:

• The public authority made a promise or representation that was clear, unambiguous, and devoid of relevant qualification.
• The claimant was within the class of persons entitled to rely on the representation.
• The authority resiled from that promise without an overriding public interest justification.

Tribunals have consistently held that general political announcements regarding the cancellation of an operational scheme do not generate an enforceable legal guarantee that statutory inadmissibility provisions will never be applied to an individual in the future. Consequently, challenges mounted purely against holding letters containing reservation clauses lack legal foundation.

Irrationality, Fairness, and Delay

Arguments asserting that reservation clauses are irrational under Wednesbury principles, or procedurally unfair under common law, face a high legal bar. A decision is irrational only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.

Where the Home Office confirms that an asylum claim is entering the substantive domestic consideration process, the inclusion of legal boilerplate preserving statutory powers does not meet the threshold of Wednesbury irrationality. Launching judicial reviews against these clauses after substantive processing has resumed is viewed by the Upper Tribunal as an unnecessary escalation over administrative form rather than substantive legal prejudice.

---

Step-by-Step Procedure: Managing Costs in Policy-Affected Cases

When navigating a judicial review where government policy changes mid-proceedings, legal representatives and applicants must follow a rigorous procedural sequence to manage cost liabilities.

Step 1: Audit Policy Concession
   |
   v
Step 2: Establish Causal Nexus
   |
   v
Step 3: Draft Consent Order (Form JRJ / Tomlin)
   |
   v
Step 4: Inter-Partes Costs Negotiation
   |
   +-------- Alternative Paths --------+
   |                                    |
   v                                    v
[Agreed Costs Figure]         [Dispute on Liability]
   |                                    |
   v                                    v
[File Consent Order]          [File Written Cost Submissions]
                                        |
                                        v
                              [Tribunal Determination]

Step 1: Auditing the Policy Concession and Substantive Relief

When the Home Office announces a policy transition or issues an updated instruction affecting the claimant's cohort:

1. Verify whether the individual has received personal written confirmation admitting their claim to the substantive asylum process.
2. Check whether the specific relief claimed in the Judicial Review Claim Form (Form T480/N461) has been delivered.
3. Determine whether any outstanding public law issues remain active, such as an unlawful detention claim, an unaddressed damages claim, or a failure to provide asylum support under section 95 or section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Decision Point: If the primary relief (admission to substantive asylum processing) has been granted, the judicial review has become academic in terms of injunctive relief. Proceed to Step 2. Do not proceed to a substantive hearing purely to litigate academic public law points.

Step 2: Assessing the Causal Nexus for Cost Recovery

Conduct an objective assessment of why the Home Office conceded:

• Scenario A (Direct Causation): The concession occurred because the Home Office admitted an individualized error pleaded in the claim (e.g., misidentification of country of transit, failure to consider documented medical evidence under the Adults at Risk policy).
• Scenario B (Pure Political Shift): The concession occurred solely because the Secretary of State issued a blanket instruction instructing caseworkers to process all claims in the UK following a national policy change.

Decision Point: If Scenario A applies, the claimant is justified in seeking full costs under R (M) v Croydon Category 1. If Scenario B applies, the claim falls into Category 3, and attempting to force the Home Office to pay full costs carries a high risk of adverse cost criticism.

Step 3: Drafting the Consent Order

Where the substantive challenge is resolved, the parties must draft an Order of Consent (often using standard Upper Tribunal Form JRJ). The consent order must contain:

1. Terms disposing of the substantive claim (e.g., withdrawal of the judicial review upon the respondent agreeing to issue an asylum screening and substantive interview within a specified timeframe).
2. A clear costs provision.

Decision Point: If costs cannot be agreed inter partes, the consent order must state that the substantive claim is withdrawn, with the issue of costs reserved for determination by the Tribunal upon written submissions.

Step 4: Inter-Partes Cost Negotiations

Prior to making an application to the Tribunal for a costs determination:

• The claimant must serve a formal costs proposal on the Government Legal Department (GLD).
• If seeking costs, provide a clear breakdown using a Statement of Costs (Form N260) detailing fee-earner hourly rates, hours spent, and disbursements (counsel fees, court fees, interpreter costs).
• Allow 14 days for the Home Office to respond with an agreed figure, a counter-offer, or an explanation of why they contend no order as to costs should be made.

Step 5: Written Submissions on Costs to the Tribunal

If negotiations fail, the parties submit written representations to the Upper Tribunal, typically limited to 3 to 5 pages:

• The claimant must address CPR 44.2 and the R (M) v Croydon framework.
• Detail the chronology of the litigation, emphasizing the Pre-Action Protocol compliance.
• Demonstrate that the claim was well-founded when issued and that proceedings were necessary to protect the claimant's position.
• The respondent will file responsive submissions, typically within 14 days.

Step 6: Determination and Assessment

The Tribunal Judge will make a determination on the papers:

• No Order as to Costs: Each side pays their own legal costs.
• Summary Assessment: The Judge determines liability and assesses the exact monetary amount payable immediately.
• Detailed Assessment: The Judge orders costs in favour of a party, to be assessed by a Costs Judge at the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) if the final quantum cannot be agreed inter partes.

---

Evidence and Documentation Requirements for JR and Costs

In public law challenges and subsequent cost disputes, caseworkers, Home Office presenting officers, and Tribunal judges evaluate specific categories of documentation.

[Pre-Action Correspondence]  --> Establishes procedural compliance and notice
[Home Office Casework File]  --> Proves whether delay was systemic or individualized
[Medical / Vulnerability]    --> Demonstrates urgency and compliance with policy
[Detailed Form N260]        --> Sets out legal time and disbursement legitimacy

Core Evidentiary Checklist

1. Pre-Action Protocol Record:

   • Proof of service of the PAP Letter of Claim (electronic delivery receipt or recorded delivery confirmation).
   • The Home Office response letter, or proof of failure to respond within the 14-day protocol period.
   • Any supplemental letters chasing the outstanding response.

2. Home Office Third Country Unit File Records:

   • The original Notice of Intent issued under Section 80B/80C.
   • The formal withdrawal letter confirming the claim is accepted for UK substantive determination.
   • Asylum screening records (Form ASL.2111/ASL.2112) indicating the date of arrival and date of initial claim.

3. Medical and Vulnerability Evidence:

   • Medico-Legal Reports (MLR) documenting psychological trauma, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), or physical disability.
   • Evidence of severe deterioration caused by procedural uncertainty or prolonged placement in holding accommodation.
   • Adults at Risk assessments carried out under Home Office detention policies.

4. Costs Documentation (Form N260):

   • Itemised time records showing dates, fee earner grades, tasks undertaken, and time spent in 6-minute units.
   • Counsel fee notes detailing hours spent drafting grounds or appearing at hearings.
   • Disbursement receipts, including Tribunal issue fees (£500 for substantive UTIAC JR applications, or £154 for initial permission applications) and translation/interpreter invoices.

---

Common Mistakes and Refusal Triggers in Costs Applications

Cost applications frequently fail due to procedural errors or fundamental misjudgements regarding the legal merits of the underlying challenge.

1. Premature Issue of Proceedings

Issuing a Judicial Review Claim Form before the expiry of the 14-day Pre-Action Protocol deadline without compelling urgency (such as an imminent removal flight) is a major trigger for cost penalties. Even if the Home Office later concedes the claim, the Tribunal routinely deprives the claimant of costs under CPR 44.2(4)(a) for failing to adhere to the pre-action protocol.

2. Pursuing Academic Claims After Relief is Conceded

When the Home Office withdraws a Notice of Intent and confirms an asylum claim will be decided in the UK, the substantive purpose of the judicial review is satisfied. Continuing to pursue the litigation purely to obtain a legal declaration, or to challenge incidental reservation wording, is viewed as an improper use of court resources. Claimants doing so risk adverse cost orders for proceedings incurred after the concession.

3. Conflating Political Statements with Concluded Legal Settlements

Assuming that a general media statement or ministerial speech immediately gives rise to an enforceable right of costs in individual claims is an error. A costs order requires either a formal settlement agreement or a judicial ruling confirming that the legal challenge was meritorious.

4. Inadequate Cost Scheduling (CPR Part 44 Deficiencies)

Failing to serve a compliant Form N260 on the respondent at least 24 hours before a hearing, or failing to itemise hours properly when filing written costs representations, often results in a summary reduction of recoverable costs or a complete refusal to assess costs summarily.

5. Over-Reliance on Legal Aid Cost Protection without Understanding Exceptions

Claimants receiving legal aid assume they are completely immune from adverse cost consequences. While statutory cost protection applies, improper conduct can lead to wasted costs orders against legal representatives directly, or conditional orders that affect future enforcement.

---

Edge Cases and Complex Procedural Scenarios

Immigration judicial reviews involving policy shifts frequently present intersecting edge cases requiring careful procedural management.

Dependants and Family Units in Inadmissibility

Where an asylum claim includes dependants (such as a spouse or minor children), the Home Office must assess family unity under Article 8 ECHR and Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children).

If the primary applicant was issued a Notice of Intent under third-country inadmissibility rules while their minor dependants were present in the UK, any policy shift terminating third-country removal applies equally to the dependants. However, if a family member has an independent, non-protection human rights application pending under Appendix FM or Appendix Private Life, the withdrawal of the inadmissibility notice does not automatically resolve the family member's route. Costs incurred in litigating independent human rights elements remain distinct from protection inadmissibility costs.

Extended Absences, Detention, and Bail Conditions

For claimants who were detained under immigration powers pending third-country removal, the abandonment of the policy fundamentally alters the lawful basis for detention. Under the Hardial Singh principles, immigration detention is lawful only if the Secretary of State intends to remove the person within a reasonable period and acts with reasonable diligence.

If the underlying removal route ceases to exist due to a policy abandonment, detention becomes unlawful from the moment it is clear that removal cannot occur within a reasonable timeframe. In these circumstances:

• The judicial review transforms from an inadmissibility challenge into an unlawful detention and false imprisonment claim.
• Even if the inadmissibility costs fall under R (M) v Croydon Category 3 (external policy shift), the claimant remains entitled to costs for the unlawful detention and damages elements under Category 1 if detention was maintained without a lawful prospect of removal.

Transitional Rules and Date of Entry Cohorts

Successive legislative changes create distinct legal cohorts based on arrival dates:

[Pre-28 June 2022 Arrivals]
  --> Pre-Nationality and Borders Act 2022 rules apply.

[28 June 2022 to 20 July 2023 Arrivals]
  --> Governed by Section 80B/80C NIAA 2002 as amended by NABA 2022.
  --> Primary group affected by MEDP Rwanda Notices of Intent.

[Post-20 July 2023 Arrivals]
  --> Governed by Illegal Migration Act 2023 duty to remove framework.

When navigating cost claims, practitioners must identify the precise transitional regime governing the claimant's initial claim. An argument that the Home Office acted unlawfully in issuing a Notice of Intent under the legal regime in force in 2022 must be judged against the law as it stood at that date, not under retrospective standards.

Switching Routes During Active Judicial Review

If an asylum applicant placed in the inadmissibility cohort subsequently submits an application to switch into a non-asylum route (e.g., an application based on long residence, Appendix Private Life, or Appendix Partner), this affects the judicial review:

1. The Home Office may refuse to decide the non-asylum application until the asylum claim is formally determined or withdrawn.
2. If the claimant withdraws their asylum claim to pursue the alternative route, the judicial review challenging the asylum Notice of Intent becomes entirely academic.
3. In this scenario, the claimant is treated as having discontinued their judicial review claim, and the starting presumption under CPR 38.6 is that the claimant will be liable for the defendant's costs, unless an exceptional departure is justified.

Strict Judicial Review Time Limits (CPR 54.5)

Under CPR Part 54.5, a judicial review claim must be filed:

• Promptly, and in any event
• Not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.

When challenging systemic delay or holding decisions, the 3-month time limit runs from the date of the specific decision, failure, or refusal to act. A subsequent political announcement does not reset the 3-month limitation period for an earlier administrative decision. Claimants who file challenges out of time, relying on recent political shifts as an excuse for historical delay, face refusal of permission and adverse cost orders for bringing late claims.

---

Legal Aid Cost Protection and Financial Risks

Understanding the financial exposure of both publicly funded and privately paying litigants is essential before litigating judicial review cost disputes.

[Legally Aided Claimants]
  --> Protected by Section 26 of LASPO 2012.
  --> Costs generally not enforceable without separate court assessment.
  --> Risk: Wasted costs against representatives for unmeritorious claims.

[Privately Funded Claimants]
  --> Full exposure under CPR 44.2.
  --> Liable for Home Office legal costs if claim is dismissed or withdrawn.
  --> Must budget for defendant costs of £3,000 to £15,000+.

Section 26 LASPO Protection

Claimants who hold Legal Aid funding through the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) benefit from statutory cost protection under Section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).

Under this provision, if an adverse costs order is made against a legally aided claimant, the order cannot be enforced without an application to the court to determine what amount is reasonable for the claimant to pay, having regard to their means, conduct, and financial resources. In standard asylum cases where the claimant is indigent and supported under section 95 or section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the court typically assesses the enforceable amount as nil.

Non-Funded and Privately Paying Applicants

Privately funded applicants enjoy no such statutory shield. If a privately paying applicant issues an unmeritorious judicial review challenging an administrative reservation clause or an academic inadmissibility issue, and the claim is dismissed or withdrawn:

• The claimant is directly exposed to paying the Home Office's legal costs incurred through the Government Legal Department.
• GLD summary costs for drafting an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence typically range between £1,500 and £4,000.
• If the matter proceeds to a contested oral permission hearing or substantive hearing, costs commonly exceed £8,000 to £15,000.

Wasted Costs Orders (Section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981)

Under Section 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR Part 46.8, the Upper Tribunal and High Court have the power to make a "wasted costs order" directly against a legal representative.

A wasted costs order requires the solicitor or barrister personally to pay the costs incurred by a party as a result of any improper, unreasonable, or negligent act or omission. Pursuing an immigration judicial review that is demonstrably hopeless, or initiating proceedings on purely political grounds with no identifiable public law error, creates a direct risk of the court initiating wasted costs proceedings against the legal firm.

---

Summary of Strategic Principles for Legal Representatives

1. Do not litigate purely political shifts in court: Public law courts supervise the lawful exercise of executive power, not political controversies. If an administrative letter causes no direct legal prejudice, do not issue a judicial review.
2. Separate causal concessions from coincidental changes: Before pursuing costs under R (M) v Croydon, ensure there is clear evidence that the claim forced the Home Office to act, rather than an independent nationwide policy reversal.
3. Use the Pre-Action Protocol strictly: Ensure every grievance, delay period, and requested remedy is explicitly detailed in the PAP letter. Concessions achieved inside the 14-day protocol window avoid litigation risks.
4. Settle promptly once substantive relief is obtained: When the Home Office agrees to process the asylum claim substantively in the UK, immediately dispose of the proceedings via a Consent Order, reserving costs only if a strong legal basis under Category 1 can be demonstrated.
5. Advise clients on cost risks: Ensure both legally aided and privately paying clients understand that a policy abandonment does not equal an automatic entitlement to recover legal costs.

---

Practical Next Steps

If you or your clients are currently subject to an unresolved immigration inadmissibility notice, a prolonged procedural delay, or an active judicial review affected by changing government policy, take the following actions:

1. Conduct a Case File Audit: Review all historical correspondence from the Home Office Third Country Unit, including any initial Notices of Intent, holding letters, and screening records.
2. Verify Active Asylum Status: Check whether the Home Office has formally transferred the case into the substantive asylum consideration queue and scheduled an asylum substantive interview.
3. Review Judicial Review Grounds: If a judicial review is already pending, assess whether the relief sought has been overtaken by policy changes, and determine whether the claim should be resolved by Consent Order.
4. Evaluate Cost Exposure: Before submitting written cost applications to the Upper Tribunal, review the arguments against the R (M) v Croydon principles to establish whether the claim falls under Category 1 or Category 3.

Reviewed by Wesbridge Associates team on 31 August 2026. We check our published guidance against GOV.UK and current Home Office rules.

Frequently asked questions

Common questions on this topic, answered by our advisers.

What happens if I lose an immigration judicial review case - will I have to pay the Home Office's legal costs?

Can I still challenge Home Office decisions even after government policy changes?

What does 'inadmissible asylum claim' mean and can it still happen after Rwanda policy ended?

How do I know if my immigration case is strong enough to avoid adverse costs?

What should I do if I received a similar letter to the one in the IX case?

Can the Home Office still remove people to third countries for asylum processing?

What protection do I have against legal costs if I have public funding for my immigration case?