An urgent hearing was convened on 2 October 2026 to consider the Defendant’s latest application for an extension of time to file evidence and pleadings in a judicial review claim concerning the cessation of relocation support for eligible ARAP and ARR Afghans.

This was the second occasion the Defendant’s delay in filing important documents imperilled the substantive hearing. In a robust judgment, R (FRY & Ors) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 2571 (Admin) Chamberlain J gives an important reminder to litigants and practitioners about the need for procedural rigour in the Administrative Court and the consequences for breaching court orders and procedural requirements.

The Defendant’s application was described as “a textbook example of bad litigation practice” §33, it was “difficult to avoid the impression that the Secretary of State and his representatives in this case came to regard procedural directions as optional”, and “They appear also to have assumed that…any detriment would be borne by the other parties and the court, and not by the Secretary of State or his team” §34.

Ultimately, the substantive hearing was caused to be rescheduled, and the Defendant was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

Learn more about the case here.

Emma Daykin for FRY (led by Tim Owen KC in the substantive matter)
Ben Anumwa for LRB (led by Tim Owen KC in the substantive matter)
Nicola Braganza KC and David Sellwood for BMN1

Instructed by Daniel Carey and Catherine Dowle of Deighton Pierce Glynn.