The High Court has issued a pointed reminder that court deadlines are not optional, after repeated late applications by the Secretary of State for Defence threatened a substantial hearing involving challenges connected with Afghan nationals seeking relocation to the UK.
What did the High Court decide?
In R (Fry, BNM1 and LRB) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 2571 (Admin), handed down on 9 October 2026, Mr Justice Chamberlain explained his reasons for orders made after the defendant sought further time to file documents in three related judicial review claims.
The applications concerned repeated failures to meet court-ordered deadlines for disclosure, evidence and written arguments. The judge said that the defendant repeatedly sought extensions only after deadlines had passed and provided little specific explanation or supporting witness evidence for most of those applications.
The late filing threatened the hearing scheduled to begin on 13 October 2026. By the case management hearing on 2 October, some material had been filed, but the claimants’ counsel explained that there was insufficient time to review the substantial new evidence, seek any further information and prepare for the hearing alongside other commitments. The judge considered that position understandable.
What were the claims about?
The three claims challenged decisions by the Secretary of State for Defence concerning Afghan nationals seeking relocation to the UK. The issues included the ending of in-country support and relocation assistance, as well as support for individuals in third countries while relocation was being pursued.
The claims were being managed together because their outcomes could have implications beyond the named claimants for other people in similar circumstances. The court had therefore listed a substantial joint hearing and set a detailed timetable for evidence, disclosure, written submissions and hearing bundles.
Mr Justice Chamberlain’s judgment addressed the procedural applications rather than deciding the underlying relocation challenges. He emphasised that the wider significance of the claims made compliance with the timetable particularly important: an adjournment could affect the parties, the court and other litigants awaiting hearings.
Why did the court criticise the late applications?
The judgment records a pattern of applications for additional time made after the relevant deadlines had expired. Explanations included that further work was needed to finalise documents, that disclosure was complex, that input from subject-matter and policy experts was required, and that technical problems had affected the preparation of some closed material.
The judge considered that these explanations were not adequately supported. He noted that the defendant could have filed witness statements setting out the steps taken to meet each deadline, when difficulties became apparent, what steps were taken to obtain additional resources, why an application had not been made earlier and what consultation had taken place with the other parties.
Instead, most applications relied on a few general sentences in the application form. The judge described the application made on 29 September 2026 as a textbook example of bad litigation practice: it was made after the deadline, without prior warning, and would have substantially reduced the time available to the claimants’ representatives to prepare for the hearing.
“Deadlines set by the court … must be met.”
Mr Justice Chamberlain, summarising the principle in the judgment
The court stressed that the burden created by repeated contested applications is not confined to the immediate parties. Each application diverts limited administrative and judicial resources and can disrupt other cases. The judge also rejected the suggestion that developments which might make some issues academic released the defendant from existing directions: the proper course would have been to apply to vary or discharge those directions.
What orders did the judge make?
The court set a further directions hearing for 9 October 2026 to relist the substantive hearing during the Michaelmas Term and establish a revised timetable. The judge also imposed requirements intended to ensure that any further contested extension application was properly evidenced and considered at an appropriate judicial level.
- Mould J made directions setting deadlines for disclosure, evidence, written arguments and hearing bundles.
- An extension was granted after the defendant sought more time to complete disclosure.
- A deadline for key documents passed without full compliance.
- The defendant made a further application for an extension after the relevant deadline.
- The court held a case management hearing after warning that the application could imperil the listed hearing.
- The judgment was handed down, setting out the court’s reasons and directions for future conduct.
The defendant was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs arising from extension applications made since 6 August 2026, the hearings on 2 and 9 October, and costs attributable to the adjournment of the hearing listed for 13 October. Those costs are to be assessed on the indemnity basis if not agreed. The defendant was also barred from recovering the costs of preparing documents filed in breach of Mould J’s order.
Any further application by the defendant to vary the directions made on 9 October that is not agreed by all parties must be accompanied by a detailed witness statement from the lawyer with conduct of the litigation. The statement must address the steps taken to comply, the reasons for any default and the identity and position of the person who decided to seek an extension, confirming that person has read the judgment. Such an application must be referred to the Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court or a judge nominated by him.
What does the judgment mean for litigators?
The judgment reinforces the need to plan court-directed work carefully and to act before a deadline becomes impossible to meet. Where a party anticipates difficulty, it should raise the issue promptly, explain the problem with evidence and seek agreement or a court order before the deadline expires wherever possible.
Applications should identify the practical steps already taken, explain why compliance cannot be achieved, and address the effect of the proposed extension on the other parties and the court timetable. Generic explanations are unlikely to be enough, particularly where there have been earlier defaults or the application could jeopardise a listed hearing.
Mr Justice Chamberlain also highlighted that even a short extension may cause substantial prejudice if it removes a significant proportion of the time available to another party. The judgment is a reminder that procedural compliance protects fairness between litigants and the effective use of court resources, rather than serving as a technical formality.
Frequently asked questions
Did the High Court decide the underlying Afghan relocation claims?
No. This judgment dealt with procedural applications and the future timetable. It did not determine the substantive challenges to the Secretary of State for Defence’s decisions.
Why were the extension applications criticised?
Several applications were made after deadlines had passed and were supported by brief, general explanations without detailed witness evidence. The court found that this approach risked unfairness to the other parties and disruption to the listed hearing.
What costs order was made?
The defendant was ordered to pay specified costs connected with the extension applications, hearings and adjournment on the indemnity basis if not agreed. The defendant may not recover the costs of preparing documents filed in breach of the court’s order.
What must accompany future contested extension applications?
Under the directions in this judgment, a further contested application by the defendant to vary the directions must be supported by a detailed witness statement from the lawyer responsible for the litigation, including an explanation of the default and details of the person who decided to seek an extension.