Background
Three judicial-review claims challenged decisions by the Secretary of State for Defence concerning Afghan nationals seeking relocation to the United Kingdom. The claims were being managed as test cases because they raised issues potentially affecting other applicants, including the ending of in-country support and relocation assistance and the provision of support in third countries. A five-day hearing was due to begin in October 2026.
The Secretary of State repeatedly missed deadlines for disclosure, evidence, and written submissions, frequently seeking extensions only after the applicable deadline had expired. The supporting explanations were generally brief and unsupported by witness evidence. After substantial evidence and submissions were served later than the timetable allowed, the claimants said they could not fairly review the new material, pursue any resulting disclosure requests, and prepare for the listed hearing.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Chamberlain concluded that the October substantive hearing could not proceed fairly and directed that it be relisted during the Michaelmas Term 2026. He described the Secretary of State’s 29 September application as a “textbook example of bad litigation practice” and found that the repeated late applications, inadequate explanations, and apparent lack of planning had predictably imperilled a substantial hearing.
The court ordered the Secretary of State to pay, on the indemnity basis, the claimants’ costs arising from extension applications since 6 August 2026, the hearings on 2 and 9 October, and the adjournment. Regardless of the claims’ ultimate outcome, the Secretary of State could not recover the costs of preparing documents filed in breach of the court’s order. Any further contested application by the defendant to vary the new timetable must be supported by a detailed witness statement from the lawyer conducting the litigation, identify the decision-maker who authorised the application, and confirm that person has read the judgment; the application must also be referred to senior judicial oversight.
Key Takeaways
- Court deadlines are binding in Administrative Court proceedings, and applications for extensions should ordinarily be made well before time expires.
- Generic assertions about workload, complexity, or limited resources are unlikely to justify an opposed extension; detailed evidence addressing the cause, timing, mitigation, and effect of the default may be required.
- Even when an extension is granted, repeated or inadequately explained breaches may result in adjournment costs, indemnity costs, restrictions on cost recovery, and enhanced judicial supervision.
Why It Matters
The judgment gives practitioners direct guidance on how the Administrative Court will approach opposed extension applications under its March 2026 Practice Statement. A short extension is not necessarily harmless: prejudice may be inferred where delay materially reduces another party’s preparation time or threatens a listed hearing.
It also demonstrates that public bodies receive no procedural dispensation merely because litigation is complex, resource-intensive, or potentially academic. Existing directions remain effective unless varied or discharged, particularly where test litigation may determine issues affecting people beyond the immediate parties.