EG (Abuse of process-legitimate expectation) Serbia and Montenegro  UKIAT 00074
Date of hearing: 8 December 2004
Date Determination notified: 22 March 2005
|Secretary of State for the Home Department||RESPONDENT|
"46. Counsel also mentioned 'a legitimate expectation'. As I understood it, that doctrine only arises where there is a promulgated Government Policy, which is not followed by the Department concerned. There is no such Government Policy that I can ascertain, in the present case. Counsel argued that the breach of the intimation given by the Leeds office over the telephone, that papers would be issued to appellant, gave rise to such a 'legitimate expectation'. There is no evidence that the person in the Leeds branch who gave the indication that documents would be issued, mentioned in paragraph 7 of the solicitor's statement, was a person of sufficient seniority, or possessing sufficient authority to give such an indication. The indications are that the responsible person considering the case, who had been dealing with the solicitor previously over the telephone, was away sick at the time of that indication. I accept Counsel's assertion that there is an internal minute compiled by his instructing solicitor of the effect of that telephone conversation (that documents would be issued) but that does note mean that the person concerned had sufficient authority to give that indication. I conclude that no 'legitimate expectation' can arise from that telephone conversation."
(ii) abuse of process/issue estoppel;
(iii) legitimate expectation.
"'… During one particular conversation the appellant's solicitor, Mr David Foroo, was told that papers were in the process of being issued for the grant of status and would be [sic] reach the appellant in the next few days. That conversation was evidenced before the [current] Adjudicator that it did in fact take place … ."
Abuse of process/issue estoppel
"It appears that this case has been before the appellate authorities no less than on nine occasions in order, in part, for the error made by the Respondent to be dealt with. The Respondent had, in fact, withdrawn a previous decision refusing asylum by a letter of refusal dated 7 August 2001 and removal directions were also made at that time for removal to FRY Kosovo."
"The Appellate Authority may, subject to the provision of these Rules, regulate the procedure to be followed in relation to the conduct of any appeal. (2) The overriding objective shall be to secure the just, timely and effective disposal of appeals and, in order to further that objective, the appellate authorities may give directions which control the conduct of any appeal."
"I consider that the present removal directions are not legal, they cannot be enforced, the respondent has had a very considerable amount of time to deal with this case lawfully and they [sic] have failed to do so."
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY