High Court Declines To Determine Academic Section 95 Challenge

Matthew Howarth recently appeared before HHJ Williams, sitting in the High Court at Birmingham, in SK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3105 (Admin).\

In this case the Administrative Court declined to determine a section 95 adequacy challenge, holding that the claim had become academic once the Claimant was dispersed into the self-contained accommodation she sought. The judge concluded that there was no sufficient public interest reason to proceed to a fact-sensitive determination of adequacy and harassment allegations in circumstances where the Claimant had already obtained all practical relief.

Background: asylum support and hotel use

The Claimant, an Indian national and survivor of domestic violence, arrived in the UK on a skilled migrant visa in 2023, with her leave later curtailed and expiring on 14 May 2024. She claimed asylum on 17 February 2025 and was accommodated with her son, born in September 2024, in full-board hotel accommodation in Stoke-on-Trent under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, before issuing judicial review proceedings on 8 May 2025 challenging delay and the adequacy of that accommodation.

Claimant’s adequacy case (§15; §21–§22)

The Claimant alleged that the 15.48m² hotel room was too small and cramped for a growing baby, with insufficient space and storage, that the absence of cooking facilities and reliance on hotel food failed to meet her needs as a breastfeeding mother and the dietary needs of her seven-month-old son, and that limited cash support left almost no disposable income for other essentials or travel. She further alleged harassment by a male member of hotel staff, said to be particularly significant given her status as a domestic violence survivor and vulnerable new mother, and contrasted this with her later satisfaction in “100% better” self-contained dispersal accommodation, where her son could safely crawl and attempt to walk.

Secretary of State’s response and adequacy framework (§12–§16; §14)

The Secretary of State contrasted space standards referred to in other cases such as R(SA), R(NB) and R(MQ), as well as under Schedule 4 to the Housing Act 2004, emphasising that the Claimant’s 15.48m² room exceeded the minimum figures for both adults and children, and contended that varied meals, infant formula, pureed food and a weekly cash allowance of £27.22 met essential needs. The harassment allegation was said to have been thoroughly investigated, with suspension, CCTV review and protective measures implemented, and no misconduct found warranting dismissal. In summarising the legal framework, the Court cited the twin-track test for adequacy from R (SA) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin) (Fordham J, 2023) at §8–§10, itself drawing on R (NB) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin)  and R (MQ) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 205 (Admin) , distinguishing between an “objective minimum standard” and a secondary evaluative judgment subject to reasonableness.

Factual disputes, harassment and the limits of JR fact-finding (§17–§20)

The judge recognised that uncontested documentary evidence (including photographs) could resolve much of the dispute on space and food but treated the harassment allegation as qualitatively different, with potentially serious consequences for both the Claimant and the staff member. By reference to R (Dobson) v SSJ [2023] EWHC 50 (Admin) at §35 and Chamberlain J’s summary in R (F) v Surrey CC [2023] EWHC 980 (Admin) at §46–§50, now reproduced in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025, the Court emphasised that judicial review generally proceeds on written evidence, does not usually resolve primary factual disputes, and will only exceptionally require oral evidence and cross-examination.

Academic claims and Salem discretion (§20–§23)

Having set out the Claimant’s own evidence describing her current dispersal flat as “100% better” and confirming that her son was thriving following a health visitor’s review, the Court held that there was “plainly” no longer a live issue affecting the parties’ rights and obligations, so that the claim was academic. The judge then applied the approach in L, M and P v Devon CC [2021] EWCA Civ 358 (Court of Appeal, 2021) at §29, §50–§56 and the Salem line of authority, as reflected in the JR Guide at §6.3.4.1–§6.3.4.2, stressing that academic public law claims may be determined only where there is a good public interest justification, such as a discrete statutory construction point likely to recur.

No public interest basis to determine fact-sensitive adequacy (§21–§23)

Although it was argued that the issues affected other pregnant and new-mother asylum seekers, the Court noted that the claim had not been pleaded as a systemic or policy challenge and that no amendment had been sought to frame such a case. The judge contrasted the position with L, M and P, observing that this was not a short, abstract issue of statutory interpretation on agreed facts but a highly fact-sensitive dispute centred on the Claimant’s “particular, individual circumstances”, including contested harassment evidence, and concluded that directing oral evidence in an academic claim would be disproportionate and risk serious procedural unfairness.

Outcome

At §23 the Court therefore declined to decide the substantive section 95 adequacy and delay issues, holding that the claim had been rendered academic by dispersal into self-contained accommodation and that there was no sufficient public interest to justify exercising the Salem discretion to proceed.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2025/3105query=%27Matthew+Howarth%27

Matthew Howarth is a Public Law Specialist. He has particular experience in Immigration Judicial Review cases and is ranked as Tier 1 Leading Junior in the Legal 500 and an Industry Leader by Chambers UK. He practices widely for both Government, Local Authorities and Claimants.