A recent case highlights significant errors in the processing of appeals within the Court of Appeal, ultimately overshadowing the shortcomings of the claimant’s legal team.
The case involved Arifuzzaman Rana, who moved to the UK from Bangladesh in 2007. His application for indefinite leave to remain was denied by the Home Office in 2018, with this decision upheld by the First-tier Tribunal. Following this, Rana sought to appeal the decision through the Court of Appeal.
The initial complications began when Mr. Rana’s legal representatives failed to comply with procedural requirements, notably by submitting the appellant’s notice without the necessary accompanying documents. Specifically, the sealed order and supporting skeleton argument were missing at the time of submission in August 2020, with the latter only submitted nearly three months later.
Compounding these issues, the registry of the Court of Appeal office experienced delays. Lord Justice Dingemans acknowledged that the disruptions were partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to an unsealed appellant’s notice. Consequently, when the Court of Appeal office instructed Rana’s solicitors to submit the appeal bundle, the notice remained unsealed, though the bundle was lodged nonetheless.
This procedural mishap was exacerbated in early 2022, when the appellant’s notice was still unissued. Despite the solicitors’ compliance in filing significant documents, the oversight persisted until May 2024. During this period, Rana’s counsel questioned the status of the case, only to find that the office had lost track of the application’s sealing status.
In a statement, Dingemans LJ detailed that the original failures by Mr. Rana’s lawyers were significant. He emphasised the need for rigorous compliance with submission standards to prevent backlog and inefficiency within the court system. Yet, he also admitted that due to the Court’s inability to seal crucial documents on two separate occasions, these failings would not have materially altered the progression of the appeal.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal extended the timeframe for Rana’s application due to these exceptional circumstances, while simultaneously refusing permission to appeal.
This incident underlines the critical importance of administrative precision within judicial processes. Although the legal representatives’ initial errors were noteworthy, they were overshadowed by the procedural inefficiencies within the Court of Appeal, leading to a reassessment of duties and accountability within such institutions.
