Case Note: Palisetty v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2473 (QB)
On the 21st July the High Court handed down judgment in Palisetty v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2473 (QB). The Honourable Mrs Justice Slade DBE found that the Claimant had been unlawfully detained for a period of 17.5 hours following an initial period of lawful detention for the purpose of examination. The Claimant was awarded basic damages and special damages for consequential loss totalling £4,131.41.
The claim originated as an application for judicial review which was granted on the 2nd April 2013 by Ian Dove QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The claim sought to challenge the Defendant’s refusal of leave to enter on the basis that the Claimant had obtained leave to enter as a student but was now seeking entry to work.
The Judge granting permission found that it was “….at least arguable that there are anomalies in the interview records and the Acknowledgment of Service which require further investigation and call the Defendant’s evidence into question.” [§ 4].
At the substantive hearing for judicial review on the 10th April 2013, James Dingemans QC (as he was then) transferred the claim to the Queen’s Bench Division.
The claim came before the High Court for damages for unlawful detention from 2pm on the 28th December 2011 to 6pm on the 29th December 2011, a period of 39.5 hours. The Claimant made a claim for special damages for consequential loss and aggravated damages.
The Court considered whether the evidence before the immigration officers and that which would have been available to them within a reasonable time justified the refusal of leave to enter [§ 23]. The Court heard oral evidence from the Claimant and three Immigration Officers. There was a factual dispute between the parties as to what was said by the Claimant when interviewed and further consideration by the Court as to whether investigations which were open to the Immigration Officers were carried out.
The Court found that one of the Immigration Officers did not obtain all evidence that would have been available to him [§ 55]. Further the court found that even if the Claimant was working as the Defendant claimed (20 hours during term time and longer during holidays), this was not incompatible with the purpose of her being in the UK, namely to study [§ 57].
The Court therefore concluded that [§ 58]:
“….on the material before the immigration officers and that which was available at or around 28 December 2011, the Defendant was not justified in inferring that the purpose of the Claimant in seeking to re-enter the United Kingdom was not to study but to work as a nanny. The Defendant has failed to satisfy the burden of proof on her to establish that the detention of the Claimant after examining her was justified.”
The Court determined that the Claimant’s detention from 14:35 on the 28th December 2011 until 08:00 on the 29th December 2011 when she was removed from the UK, a period of 17.5 hours, was unlawful. The initial period of detention for the purpose of examination was deemed lawful.
The Court applied the principles of Thompson v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis [1998] QB 498 in respect of basic damages, taking into account inflation and awarded the Claimant £3,509.48 for the 17.5 hour period [§ 60].
The Court found that the Claimant was entitled to recover special damages for the cost of her flight from London to Hyderabad on the basis that these costs would not have been incurred but for the actions of the Defendant. On this basis, the Court awarded damages amounting to £568.92 [§ 61].
The Claimant claimed for the cost of her visa but as no evidence was adduced, the Court declined to award damages [§ 62]. The Claimant claimed further damages for course fees and living expenses wasted during her time in the UK namely rent, general living expenses and travel costs. The Court found that the Claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof that but for the wrongful act of the Defendant the costs would not have been wasted. The Court found that the Claimant failed to do so and that the Claimant’s failure to complete her course, which had led to the expenses being incurred, was as a result of her own poor performance on her course of study [§ 63].
The Defendant was ordered to pay a total sum of £4,131.41 to the Claimant [§ 64].