Judicial Review Cost ?

[stary100]

I have searched the forum and found people are suggesting average £5000 to 6000 for JR proceeding but if some one could please give me breakdown about that cost.

The only fee i see is "1 A fee of £50.00 is payable when you lodge your application for permission to apply for Judicial Review. A further £180.00 is payable if you wish to pursue the claim if permission is granted (Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2008"

50+180+500(for solicitor) to proceed the case,make it a £1000

Am i missing something ?

Please guide.

Thank you

[Tahir Bashir]

I have searched the forum and found people are suggesting average £5000 to 6000 for JR proceeding but if some one could please give me breakdown about that cost.

The only fee i see is "1 A fee of £50.00 is payable when you lodge your application for permission to apply for Judicial Review. A further £180.00 is payable if you wish to pursue the claim if permission is granted (Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2008"

50+180+500(for solicitor) to proceed the case,make it a £1000

Am i missing something ?

Please guide.

Thank you

Yes you are missing a lot. Judicial Review (JR) is complicated business as it starts in the High Court. Solicitors cannot even appear at High Court unless they have higher rights of audience. OISC advisors are not allowed to do JR at all. I don't know where did you get £500 a solicitor's fees. The fee in JR depends on complexity of the matter and time it will take. Further, there is barrister’s fee if matter goes to the hearing.

One can start JR on his own, but whether he will succeed is an other matter. JR is not that simple as people think. There can be costs implications in JR.

[avjones]

You are missing a lot, if you want to be represented.

JR is a complicated and specialist area of law. Most solicitors don't have rights of audience in the High Court. Immigration advisors (etc) can't have anything to do with JR.

The actual cost depends significantly on the complexity of the case. But £5k sounds a decent minimum.

[Tahir Bashir]

You are missing a lot, if you want to be represented.

JR is a complicated and specialist area of law. Most solicitors don't have rights of audience in the High Court. Immigration advisors (etc) can't have anything to do with JR.

The actual cost depends significantly on the complexity of the case. But £5k sounds a decent minimum.

Amanda you literally repeating my words; lol, but that is ok.

However, £5000 is bit exaggeration, generally it does not cost that much on immigration Judicial Reviews, even if a case goes to hearing and a barrister is instructed.

[avjones]

It really does depend on the complexity of the case, as to the cost, I think we'll both agree.

You also need to bear in mind the other side's costs.

[stary100]

It really does depend on the complexity of the case, as to the cost, I think we'll both agree.

You also need to bear in mind the other side's costs.

Thank you so much Tahir Bashir and Amanda for your replies

My case is not complicated at all,my documents were overlooked by EC and Reviewer messed up the Review

Complete story is under this thread http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=58455

If anything to sugguest please ? any good law firm ?

[Obie]

You seem to have a very good case for a JR as the decision is unlawful and unreasonable. However i am worried that due to the delays in making your claim, which has been more than 3 months, your claim might be dismissed on technicality.

It is worth a try nevertheless.

[avjones]

Given the time issue, whatever you do needs to be done very fast indeed.

[Hope1]

Hi stary100

see my post in tier 1 general forum in your thread.so you can understand a bit about cost of JR.

[Tahir Bashir]

The first thing to establish is whether JR is the right remedy to pursue. If there is good claim for JR, then there is no need to worry about costs. I mentioned the term costs in this thread, however, it shouldn't be misconceived. In immigration cases, the issue of costs rarely come for the applicants.

[avjones]

The first thing to establish is whether JR is the right remedy to pursue. If there is good claim for JR, then there is no need to worry about costs. I mentioned the term costs in this thread, however, it shouldn't be misconceived. In immigration cases, the issue of costs rarely come for the applicants.

The issue of costs arises very, very often in immigration-related JRs, if the case doesn't suceed.

[Obie]

Amanda you literally repeating my words; lol, but that is ok.

However, £5000 is bit exaggeration, generally it does not cost that much on immigration Judicial Reviews, even if a case goes to hearing and a barrister is instructed.

I think it can be more or less that amount depending on the complexity of the case. If however your case is strong, and you either get a grant of permission to proceed, and the Secretary of State concede or reconsider, or you go to the substantive hearing and win. You can be rest assured your cost will be recovered from the Secretary of state.

[Tahir Bashir]

The first thing to establish is whether JR is the right remedy to pursue. If there is good claim for JR, then there is no need to worry about costs. I mentioned the term costs in this thread, however, it shouldn't be misconceived. In immigration cases, the issue of costs rarely come for the applicants.

The issue of costs arises very, very often in immigration-related JRs, if the case doesn't suceed.

They way it works in practice is, if an applicant has good prospect of wining his JR, UKBA back down from resisting JR and usually give undertaking to reconsider the applicant's case within specific time. This process starts from the JR protocol letter. There are many cases where the UKBA is clearly wrong or simply negligent, the start of JR bring them to re-look at the case. If, for example, their decision is clearly irrational or fundamentally wrong, the UKBA policy is not to waste their budget on defending cases which they know it is very likely they will lose. So that is why the issue of costs does not arise in many applicants' cases.

To OP, not to stuck in this thread or be discouraged, you have got advice which could be given in a public forum, now you may proceed. You have good case; if the time limit doesn't become an issue you have good chances of winning it.

[Obie]

You might be right, that the practice in many cases is to concede.

But in 2008, according to statistics, about a third of cases that went through to a substantive hearing, were won, so UKBA are sometimes adamant and reluctant to concede, even if they know their case has no merit.

Analysis


1. In 2008 ( Latest Statistics), there were 4643 applications for Permission to JR, of which:

65% or 3030 went to a judge for a decision
35 % or 1613 were withdrawn before the judge had an opportunity of deciding whether or not to refuse or grant permission.

2. Of the 3030 application that went to the judge,

353 or 12% were granted permission
2677 or 88% were dismissed.

3. Of the 353 that were granted permission,

144 or 41% went before a judge for a decision
209 or 59% were withdrawn before the case went before the single judge.

4. Of the 144 cases that went before a judge,

10 or 7% were withdrawn in the process, before a decision could be made, whiles
46 or 32% were allowed, and orders were passed in the applicants favour.
88 or 68% were dismissed.

5. Assuming the cases withdrawn, after permission was granted, and also the ones that were withdrawn before a final decision was made by a judge, were all in favour of the applicant, i will conclude, that 75% of people who are granted permission to JR do eventually get a diserable result. and the Secretary of State success rate is only 25 %.

[Tahir Bashir]

Amanda you literally repeating my words; lol, but that is ok.

However, £5000 is bit exaggeration, generally it does not cost that much on immigration Judicial Reviews, even if a case goes to hearing and a barrister is instructed.

I think it can be more or less that amount depending on the complexity of the case. If however your case is strong, and you either get a grant of permission to proceed, and the Secretary of State concede or reconsider, or you go to the substantive hearing and win. You can be rest assured your cost will be recovered from the Secretary of state.

Agree with this.
Further, the costs are not automatic, the Judges have discretion in regard to costs. In some cases the Judges don't award costs to the winning party ,even if the appliacnt has lost. This happens usually when the winning party is a public authority, and the applicant's case was not spurious or completely without merit. In JRs, the Judges do consider losing party's financial means when dealing with costs.

[Obie]

I believe Pre-Action Protocol should be sent, at the same time you need to file in JR claim form. Please see guidance

You should use the most recent ECO decision as the basis for making the claim, and support it with the original decision

[avjones]

They way it works in practice is, if an applicant has good prospect of wining his JR, UKBA back down from resisting JR and usually give undertaking to reconsider the applicant's case within specific time. This process starts from the JR protocol letter. There are many cases where the UKBA is clearly wrong or simply negligent, the start of JR bring them to re-look at the case. If, for example, their decision is clearly irrational or fundamentally wrong, the UKBA policy is not to waste their budget on defending cases which they know it is very likely they will lose. So that is why the issue of costs does not arise in many applicants' cases.

You don't need to tell me the way it works in practice, honestly (-:

My experience is that the UKBA fight hard unless and until permission is granted.

It is after permission that they are likely to fold, and I agree taht they do usually agree to reconsider at this time.

But it's irresponsible not to advise of the risk of costs if the JR loses.

[avjones]

I believe Pre-Action Protocol should be sent, at the same time you need to file in JR claim form. Please see guidance

You should use the most recent ECO decision as the basis for making the claim, and support it with the original decision

But if time is at issue, you shouldn't delay JR in order to follow the pre-action protocol.

[Tahir Bashir]

They way it works in practice is, if an applicant has good prospect of wining his JR, UKBA back down from resisting JR and usually give undertaking to reconsider the applicant's case within specific time. This process starts from the JR protocol letter. There are many cases where the UKBA is clearly wrong or simply negligent, the start of JR bring them to re-look at the case. If, for example, their decision is clearly irrational or fundamentally wrong, the UKBA policy is not to waste their budget on defending cases which they know it is very likely they will lose. So that is why the issue of costs does not arise in many applicants' cases.

You don't need to tell me the way it works in practice, honestly (-:

My experience is that the UKBA fight hard unless and until permission is granted.

It is after permission that they are likely to fold, and I agree taht they do usually agree to reconsider at this time.

But it's irresponsible not to advise of the risk of costs if the JR loses.

Yes the UKBA usually fight hard until the permissionis granted, but this is something is not related with the issue of costs.

You have bit over-emphasised the costs issue without even explaining it fully. OP has now been explained he can recover the costs if he wins or UKBA concedes in middle of the way. He is also been explained that the specific facts of OP's case indicate he shouldn't worry about the costs and go ahead in his current circumstances. Obviously OP is not assisted if he is made scared that there could be £5000 costs if he starts JR, then leaving him in uncertainty. This is unethical. Had OP left on your posts in this thread (you can re-look at them), it is obvious he would have left confused, scared, without any clear direction and uncertain.


The purpose here is not to show knowledge about JR, but to offer practical help to OP, if one can. By looking at posts above, Obie has offered practical help which can assist the OP, as OP has now been provided link to the JR procedure.

[avjones]

"You also need to bear in mind the other side's costs."

Is what I actually said, not exactly an exaggeration.

[UK_Tier1]

I have searched the forum and found people are suggesting average £5000 to 6000 for JR proceeding but if some one could please give me breakdown about that cost.

The only fee i see is "1 A fee of £50.00 is payable when you lodge your application for permission to apply for Judicial Review. A further £180.00 is payable if you wish to pursue the claim if permission is granted (Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2008"

50+180+500(for solicitor) to proceed the case,make it a £1000

Am i missing something ?

Please guide.
Thank you

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your estimate is not far off as I am currently going true a JR (Out of Country Application) and in total I have paid my UK based solicitor £1350 ( This only includes fee for Pre-Protocol Action + JR Paper Application + Home Office correspondence + Re-submission of JR application if the first one fails)

In addition to these cost, I would have to make further payments should the courts grant an oral hearing although it might not get to this stage ( as some have already pointed out, the HO usually concede if you have a very good grounds to have your JR application approve by the court and most importantly, if the risk of your JR succeeding would open up flood gate for others and also the possibility of sufficient claims being made against the HO)

In my own case, the Treasury Solicitor have already written to my Solicitor(s) asking that I should withdrawal my case from court and they RECONSIDER my application (which my solicitor vehemently told him NO, as He would only withdraw if my Tier 1 Visas is issued as prayed in the court fillings). The Treasury Solicitor also said they would consider issuing the visas if I would drop any claims against them in courts ( Again my Solicitor told them that the decision of droping claims is not to be made be him and that He would get in touch with His client to seek advice, and that He would try to encourage His client not to pursue the claims in court should the HO issue the visa).
I got a call recently by the BHC to come for my visas, however when I got there, they started asking for information which was not requested when I was asked to come for the visas (iformation they should not even be asking for!), and the people I met at the BHC did not even know that I had a JR application in court and at the end they refused to give me the visas.

I have gone back to the courts, letting the court know how decietful the HO and the BHC has been and at this point I am only waiting for the reply from the courts (i.e. whether my JR application is allowed).

I know once the JR application is allowed to proced, the HO/BHC would issue the Visas immediately as there are several administrative negligence on their part which the Treausry Solicitor has even mentioned as a weakness in their defense case hence the reason HO/BHC was advised to concede earlier but the EC is proving stubborn and I just have to be patient with the out come of the court!

Hope this is of help to you!

[HRY2005]

Thats how funny the HO could be. I have heard of cases where they advised the applicants to withraw cases from the court for reconsideration and they still end not being granted.

It's best to rely on the court as you have done, and do not withdraw your case unless visa is issued.

Good luck

[UK_Tier1]

Thats how funny the HO could be. I have heard of cases where they advised the applicants to withraw cases from the court for reconsideration and they still end not being granted.

It's best to rely on the court as you have done, and do not withdraw your case unless visa is issued.

Good luck

Yup.. I have instructed my Solicitor not to withdraw from Court and also told him to let the Treasury Solicitor know that I would be claiming damages as well as legal cost if the court rule in my favour.

Strangely during my visit to the BHC at the request of HO, the ECO was asking me if I was student amd if my application was refused based on a student application! That was when I knew that the ECO did not have an idea of who He was talking to or the case He was handling! He told me that the condition put on the system from london was that I have to give them an up to date Bank Statement before they would issue to visas and I told the ECO that I can not submit any new documents since the information the HO gave me was to take my passport down with relevant documents (as at the time the inital application was made) so that they can issue me my visas. While discussing with the ECO has was still insisting that their initial decision to refuse the application was right until I urged him to go through the documents, at which point He realised that they have made a very stupid mistake and still He said He would only issue the visas based on the information He has on his system from london!

Well I made it known to him that the case is still court and that I would wait for the court to decide!

[Hope1]

hi uk Tier1

keep fighting you will get it.

[Obie]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In my own case, the Treasury Solicitor have already written to my Solicitor(s) asking that I should withdrawal my case from court and they RECONSIDER my application (which my solicitor vehemently told him NO, as He would only withdraw if my Tier 1 Visas is issued as prayed in the court fillings). The Treasury Solicitor also said they would consider issuing the visas if I would drop any claims against them in courts ( Again my Solicitor told them that the decision of droping claims is not to be made be him and that He would get in touch with His client to seek advice, and that He would try to encourage His client not to pursue the claims in court should the HO issue the visa).
I got a call recently by the BHC to come for my visas, however when I got there, they started asking for information which was not requested when I was asked to come for the visas (iformation they should not even be asking for!), and the people I met at the BHC did not even know that I had a JR application in court and at the end they refused to give me the visas.

I believe if you get a consent order from Treasury Solicitors and an undertaking that they will issue the visa, then you can send it to the court and withdraw the JR. It is a legally binding document. They will have to comply with their undertaking.

I have gone back to the courts, letting the court know how decietful the HO and the BHC has been and at this point I am only waiting for the reply from the courts (i.e. whether my JR application is allowed).

I know once the JR application is allowed to proced, the HO/BHC would issue the Visas immediately as there are several administrative negligence on their part which the Treausry Solicitor has even mentioned as a weakness in their defense case hence the reason HO/BHC was advised to concede earlier but the EC is proving stubborn and I just have to be patient with the out come of the court!

Hope this is of help to you!

In light of the fact you have signed no agreement, HO can always lie that they never made any promises.

Please note that a JR does not overturn wrong decision and replace it with a correct one, it simply pass order as to the lawfullness of a decision, whether it was irrational or not. HO can be allowed to make the same decison again if they do it in a lawful manner.

If they promise to issue a visa, and sign a consent order to that effect, perhaps, you and your solicitor should consider withdrawing the case, if that is what you want of course.