In the case of JR-2025-LON-001018, heard before Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor, an Egyptian national successfully challenged the Home Office’s extraordinary delay in processing his further asylum submissions. The applicant, known only as D1527 to protect his anonymity, had been waiting since February 2018 for a decision on his protection claim.
The case revealed repeated administrative failures and numerous institutional flaws that kept a vulnerable person waiting for more than seven years, worsened by a string of poor decisions.
After arriving in the UK in January 2014 and claiming asylum, his initial application was refused, and his appeal dismissed by October 2015. The real problems began in February 2018 when he submitted detailed further submissions based on his sexuality and feared persecution upon return to Egypt. Rather than processing these submissions, the Home Office made the questionable decision in September 2018 to place them “on hold” pending the outcome of ongoing civil litigation.
This decision alone might have been defensible, but what followed was a series of errors that Judge Norton-Taylor found to be clearly irrational. In July 2021, the Home Office inexplicably “voided” the applicant’s further submissions entirely, claiming there were multiple applications in existence. Crucially, they failed to inform the applicant of this decision.
The Human Cost of Delay
While he was held at Brook House in 2017, undercover BBC footage revealed that the applicant endured significant mistreatment by officers. The trauma from this abuse led him to self-harm and even attempt to take his own life, highlighting the profound toll these experiences took on his well-being.
Even though the applicant’s vulnerability and mental health risks were known, the Home Office delayed his case until December 2024, only acknowledging their mistake and reinstating his submissions after legal intervention.
In December 2024, the Home Office finally reinstated the applicant’s further submissions and stated their “aim” was to make a decision within three months. However, they missed this self-imposed deadline by almost six weeks by the time of the judgment.
Whilst the tribunal found that this didn’t create a legitimate expectation Judge Norton-Taylor was highly critical of the continued delays and the Home Office’s failure to provide adequate explanations.
Legal Principles revisited in the decision
Judge Norton-Taylor’s judgment confirms three important legal principles about delay in immigration cases. The tribunal found that unlawful delay can result from:
Irrational decisions and omissions by the Home Office
Judge Norton-Taylor stated that a delay is considered unlawful if it arises from decisions that would not be made by a reasonable administrator. The determination focuses on whether the conduct meets fundamental standards of rational administration, rather than differing perspectives on policy choices.
Failure to process cases within reasonable timeframes
The tribunal stated that decisions on asylum applications must be made within a reasonable time, regardless of complexity. The Home Office cannot delay cases indefinitely; progress, clear milestones, and realistic deadlines are required.
Lack of proper justification for administrative decisions
Concerns were raised and reiterated regarding the need for transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making. The tribunal determined that delays become unlawful when the Home Office fails to provide sufficient justification for their actions or omissions.
The judge expressed strong criticism of the decision to void in July 2021, characterising it as “clearly irrational” and lacking any identifiable legal foundation. Additionally, the fact that the applicant’s representatives had lodged a separate request for discretionary leave did not authorize the Home Office to invalidate protection-based further submissions.
The Outcome
The tribunal has held that the Home Office’s actions between July 2021 and the judgment date were unlawful. While this might seem a modest remedy, it provides formal recognition of the institutional failings and allows rest for the applicant after their lengthy ordeal.
More importantly, the judge issued a direction for the Home Office to serve their decision by 1st May 2025 to get some tangible relief and closure.
Wider Implications for Immigration Practice
This case sends a clear message to the Home Office about the unacceptability of prolonged delays in asylum cases. The tribunal’s willingness to make a formal declaration of unlawful conduct, even without damages claim, demonstrates the seriousness with which courts now view administrative delays.
For immigration practitioners, the case provides useful precedent on challenging delays through judicial review. It shows that courts will scrutinise not just the length of delay, but the administrative decisions that contribute to it.
The decision highlights the importance of a duty of candour. The Home Office was reproached for failing to disclose internal safeguarding policies, referred to as justifications for delay, leaving everyone entirely in the dark about the true reasons for inaction.
Looking Forward: Lessons for the System
The case reveals systemic issues with the Home Office’s management of its cases. The fact that officials apparently did not know about the applicant’s established vulnerabilities until December 2024, despite years of dealings with them, demonstrates fundamental failures in accounting records and case management. Judge Norton-Taylor noted that, even the further submissions were “narrow and straightforward” protection claims, and consequently, it is unknown why claims such as this would take years to resolve. The complexities the Home Office were citing were consistent with related matters rather than with protection claims.
Conclusion: A Call for Systemic Change
This case represents much more than an individual victory. It provides systemic critique of the Home Office’s approach to vulnerable asylum seekers. The combination of faulty decision-making, poor communication, and institutional indifference created years of unnecessary trauma for someone who had already suffered.
For those working in immigration law, this judgment gives rise to hope but also concern. Hope that the courts will take the Home Office to task for unreasonable delays but also concern for the systemic issues that allow such cases to come to pass.
A clear message is sent, that the Home Office simply must do better. Asylum seekers must be given timely and rational decisions that are based on proper consideration of their individual circumstances. Otherwise, both the rule of law and basic human dignity are undermined. This case serves as a reminder that behind every immigration decision is a human being whose life hangs in the balance. The system must reflect that reality in both its procedures and its practice.
Master the Changes with HJT’s Judicial Review Conference 2025
The period between 2024-2025 has witnessed several judicial review decisions that have fundamentally altered the strategies for approaching such claims for the immigration practitioners.
Landmark cases have established new precedents on administrative delay, procedural fairness, and the duty of candour, directly impacting how JR challenges are approached and their likelihood of success. Evolving rules governing legitimate expectations, the materiality test for administrative errors, and standards of review have created fresh opportunities for successful challenges whilst simultaneously raising the bar for practitioners.
These ongoing developments, coupled with shifting Home Office policies and procedural changes, mean that yesterday’s legal strategies may no longer be fit for purpose in today’s rapidly changing environment.
Don’t let your practice fall behind these crucial developments
HJT’s Judicial Review Conference on 28th November 2025 offers the perfect opportunity to update your knowledge with leading experts whilst networking with fellow practitioners facing similar challenges.
At just £119 +VAT for 6 CPD hours, this essential training ensures you’re equipped with the latest precedents and practical insights needed to keep up with the evolving Judicial review cases successfully.
To book your spot, visit HERE
For enquiries or assistance with the booking, please contact us on enquiries@hjt-training.co.uk or, call us on 07544164692
Written by Shareen Khan – Legal Content Writer, HJT Training
Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration advisors should consult the full decisions and official policy documents when advising clients on specific cases.
