Majera, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 46 (20 October 2021)
Citation:Majera, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 46 (20 October 2021).
Subjects invoked: 12. 'Employment'.80. 'Travel Agents'.
Rule of thumb:If a Court grants an order, if it is clear that the Court would change this, do you still have to go to Court to get the order changed? Yes. This case held that if there is a Court order, either an injunction (interdict) or specific implement (performance), and this order has been put on the Court interlocutor, then even if circumstances change drastically and the Court would be extremely likely to amend the order, the order still technically applies up until the point the Court rule on it again, and cannot just be ignored. A Court order must technically be followed until it is altered or updated, and cannot be ignored just because circumstances have changed significantly.
Background facts:
This case invoked the subject of remedies. It raised the principle of ‘the duty to obey Court orders’
The material facts were that in the past Mr Majera came to the UK when he was a child as an immigrant from Rwanda. In the early 2000’s he had an immigration application case pass through the Court system. The Court ordered that Majera had indefinite leave to remain in the UK. In 2006 Majera was then convicted for a series of robberies and was given a significant custodial sentence for these crimes. In 2012, when Majera was still in prison, the Home Office made a deportation order for him. When Majera was released from prison on license parole in 2015 the Home Office immediately detained him and handed him a deportation order.
Majera challenged this deportation order from the Home Office on a technical point of remedies law, namely the ‘duty to obey Court orders principle, and argued that the deportation order was in clear breach of a Court order from the early 2000’s granting him indefinite leave to remain in the UK, thereby invalidating the deportation order he had been presented with.
Judgment:
The Court upheld Majera’s arguments on this technical point of remedies law. They held that based on the principle of ‘the duty to obey Court orders’, the Home Office were not legally allowed to make a deportation order in blatant breach of a previous Court order, because even if circumstances changed dramatically where it seems the Court would certainly amend an order, the Home Office still have to re-apply to the Court to actually follow the process of having the Court order amended.
The Home Office essentially jumped the gun. The Home Office should have informed Majera that they were raising a Judicial review to amend the previous Court granting him indefinite leave to remain in the UK, then handed him a deportation order. Majera, despite seemingly sitting with a very poor hand of cards in terms of immigration law so to speak, was able to win this case based on a technical point of remedies law & the principle of ‘duty to obey Court orders’ – ‘the Majera technicality’.
Ratio-decidendi:
Lord Reed, Ratio Decidendi at 43-58, ‘ 43. The duty to obey court orders … The present case is concerned with the order of a court or tribunal. That aspect of the case gives rise to different issues, with the consequence that it is governed by different principles. 44. It is a well established principle of our constitutional law that a court order must be obeyed unless and until it has been set aside or varied by the court (or, conceivably, overruled by legislation). The principle was authoritatively stated in Chuck v Cremer (1846) 1 Coop temp Cott 338; 47 ER 884, in terms which have been repeated time and again in later authorities… 58… neither permission nor relief was applied for… I would allow the appeal (of Majera)’.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.