Introduction

In Reclaiming Motion by Adeyim Odutola Odubajo (AP) against the Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2020] CSIH 57), the Scottish Court of Session addressed critical procedural aspects concerning the timeframe and avenues available for judicial review applications. The petitioner, Adeyim Odutola Odubajo, a Nigerian national, sought judicial review against the Secretary of State for the Home Department's refusal to recognize his additional asylum submissions as constituting a fresh claim. This case spotlighted the interplay between sections 27A-D and section 28 of the Court of Session Act 1988, particularly in the context of appealing permission decisions within judicial review processes.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioner filed a reclaiming motion to challenge the Lord Ordinary's determination that the grounds for his judicial review application arose on 5 June 2019, thereby rendering his petition time-barred under section 27A(1) of the Court of Session Act 1988. Although the Lord Ordinary had extended the filing period to 6 September 2019, the petitioner contested the foundational date for the application of the time limit. Ultimately, the Inner House refused the reclaiming motion, asserting that section 28 does not apply to decisions regarding permission to proceed with judicial review applications. The judgment clarified that the appeal route under section 27D exclusively governs permission decisions, thereby negating the applicability of section 28 in this context.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

This Judgment primarily focused on statutory interpretation rather than relying on previous case law precedents. The court extensively analyzed the provisions of the Court of Session Act 1988, particularly sections 27A to D and section 28, in light of the legislative intent and policy objectives outlined in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and the Scottish Civil Courts Review.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the comprehensive nature of sections 27A-D, which were designed to establish a standalone framework governing all aspects of permission applications for judicial review. Section 27D specifically provided that appeals against permission decisions are confined to a seven-day window to the Inner House, explicitly intending to streamline and control the appellate process. The court inferred that allowing section 28, which pertains to reclaiming motions, to interact with permission decisions would undermine the statutory scheme's coherence and efficiency. By restricting appeal routes to section 27D, the court maintained the integrity of the legislative framework established by recent reforms.

Impact

This Judgment has significant implications for legal practitioners and applicants involved in judicial review proceedings. It clarifies that reclaiming motions, as governed by section 28 of the Court of Session Act 1988, do not apply to decisions regarding permission to proceed with judicial reviews. Instead, parties must utilize the appeal mechanism under section 27D exclusively. This delineation prevents procedural confusion and ensures that the appellate process remains streamlined and predictable. Future cases will reference this Judgment when determining the appropriate avenues for challenging permission decisions in judicial reviews.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reclaiming Motion

A reclaiming motion allows a party to challenge certain interlocutory decisions made by a lower court, seeking to have a higher court review and overturn those decisions. In this context, the petitioner attempted to use a reclaiming motion to dispute the Lord Ordinary's determination regarding the time limit for his judicial review application.

Section 27A-D vs. Section 28

- Sections 27A-D: These sections create a new, comprehensive procedural framework for seeking permission to conduct judicial reviews, including specific time limits and exclusive appeal rights.
- Section 28: Traditionally governs reclaiming motions against interlocutory decisions in judicial proceedings but was challenged regarding its applicability to permission decisions under the new framework.

Permission Decision

A permission decision is an initial screening by the court to determine whether a judicial review application has sufficient grounds to proceed. It assesses factors like legal standing, timeliness, and the likelihood of success.

Conclusion

The Inner House's decision in Reclaiming Motion by Adeyim Odutola Odubajo unequivocally establishes that the procedural route for appealing permission decisions in judicial review applications is confined to section 27D of the Court of Session Act 1988. The judgment underscores that section 28 does not extend to these permission decisions, thereby reinforcing the intention for a streamlined and efficient appellate process as envisioned by the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Legal practitioners must therefore adhere to the exclusive appeal mechanisms delineated in sections 27A-D, ensuring clarity and consistency in judicial review proceedings.