Four Months. No Ruling. Chagossian Judicial Review Frozen as Government Moves Ahead on Diego Garcia.
Nearly four months after an urgent High Court hearing, Chagossian representatives Louis Misley Mandarin and Louis Michel Mandarin are still waiting for a decision.
Today they asked the High Court of Justice, Administrative Court, to act by filing an urgent application to have their stalled judicial review relisted before a new judge.
The case challenges decisions and omissions by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Officeconcerning Diego Garcia and the future of the Chagos Islands.
The judicial review was issued on 24 June 2025. Within 48 hours, the High Court recognised that expedition was appropriate.
Eight months later, the case has not moved beyond the hurdle of a permission hearing.
A Threshold Decision That Has Not Arrived
The oral renewal hearing took place on 28 October 2025. The Court indicated judgment would follow shortly. It has not.
Permission is not a trial. It does not decide the facts. It asks only whether the claim is arguable and should proceed.
Appellate courts describe it as a low threshold. Yet this threshold question has now remained undecided for close to four months.
There is no timetable for the decision. The delay means the arguments have gone unheard.
Without a decision, the case cannot proceed to a full hearing. Nor can the Claimants seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The application filed today states plainly that justice delayed is justice denied.
The Clock Has Not Stopped
The procedural history is clear:
• 24 June 2025, judicial review issued
• 26 June 2025, High Court abridges time
• 15 September 2025, permission refused on the papers
• Within seven days, renewal lodged
• 28 October 2025, oral hearing held, decision reserved
• November to February, repeated indications that a draft was anticipated, no ruling delivered
During the same period:
• Parliamentary stages concerning Diego Garcia have progressed
• Sovereignty discussions have continued
• Public debate has intensified
• In December 2025, the Chagossian community established a Government in Exile, citing the urgency of representation
While the courts have remained silent, political processes have not paused.
An Exceptional Situation
The Claimants make clear they are sympathetic to the reported illness of the presiding judge and grateful for updates received.
But there is now:
• No timetable
• No indication of when a decision will be delivered
• Nearly four months since the hearing
Permission decisions are frequently delivered promptly and are often capable of being given orally – the same day.
At the October hearing, the Claimants had only 45 minutes to address the threshold question. The Defendant’s submissions extended beyond the allotted time.
A ruling was expected within days. It has now been months.
What Happens Now
The Claimants ask the Court to relist the matter within days. The Claimants are ready to repeat their argument to be heard and then want a full hearing – no one seems to want to listen but they will not stop speaking up.
Statements
Interim Chagossian First Minister and Claimant Misley Mandarin said:
“Justice delayed is justice denied. We are not asking the Court to decide our case today. We are asking for a decision on whether it can be heard. That is a low threshold. Nearly four months later, there is still no answer. Meanwhile, decisions about our homeland continue to be taken. The Chagossian people cannot be left in indefinite limbo.”
A legal spokesperson for the Claimants said:
“This is a threshold determination about arguability. It is not a full judgment. The Court itself recognised that expedition was appropriate. Yet the case remains stalled. That delay prevents progress in either direction and denies the Claimants justice – they deserve to be heard.”
Claire Bullivant of the Great British PAC said:
“An urgent judicial review was heard in October. There is still no decision. Parliament is being asked to move forward on sovereignty arrangements before the court has even decided whether the case should proceed. That cannot be how justice is meant to function.”
Further updates will follow once the Court responds.
