The Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) has granted an urgent interim injunction preventing the removal of Chagossian claimants from the Chagos Islands.
The decision was handed down on 19 February 2026 by The Honourable James Lewis KC, Chief Justice of BIOT.
The claim was brought by Louis Misley Mandarin, acting on his own behalf and as First Minister of the Chagossian Government, together with Louis Michel Mandarin, Louis Antoine Lemettre, and Guy Shane Adrien Castel.
The claimants are Chagossians by birth or descent.
The proceedings arise from events on 16 February 2026, when members of the Mandarin family travelled to the Chagos Islands and landed on Île du Coin, part of the Peros Banhos atoll, approximately 120 miles from the military base at Diego Garcia. The UK Government has publicly indicated that the claimants pose no security threat to the base.
On 18 February 2026, Removal Orders were issued to the claimants under section 12 of the Immigration Order 2004, requiring them to leave the Territory and prohibiting their return without further notice. The claimants appealed the Removal Orders to the Commissioner under section 10 of the Immigration Order and sought an undertaking that no removal action would be taken pending determination of their appeal and any judicial review proceedings.
Having received no undertaking, the claimants made an urgent application to the Supreme Court for interim relief.
The application was undertaken by Barrister James Tumbridge of Keystone Law.
In his judgment, the Chief Justice held that:
- There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the lawfulness of the delay or failure to determine permit applications, the procedure adopted in issuing the Removal Orders, and the lawfulness of the threatened removal.
- The balance of convenience favours the claimants, particularly given the absence of any security threat and the practical difficulties they would face if removed.
The Court has granted a temporary injunction restraining enforcement of the Removal Orders for seven days to allow the Defendant to file a response. In the absence of a response, the injunction will remain in force pending determination of the judicial review proceedings.
Commenting following the decision, James Tumbridge said:
“This is a huge statement for justice. The BIOT and FCDO had ignored our requests for permits, but the judge was willing to take an urgent application and deal with it whilst flying over Africa. This injunction gives a proper chance to understand when a deportation is appropriate. My clients are native Chagossians seeking to return peacefully to their homeland. We welcome the clarity and fairness reflected in today’s decision.”
The venture to facilitate the claimants’ stay on the islands was funded by donations organised by the Great British PAC.
Claire Bullivant, CEO of the Great British PAC, said:
“This has always been about supporting the fundamental right of a people to reconnect with their homeland. The British public responded generously because they believe in fairness and accountability. We are proud to have helped make this peaceful and lawful return possible, and we welcome the Court’s decision to ensure due process is followed.”
Misley Mandarin, First Minister of the Chagossian Government, said:
“For decades our people have been kept from the land of our birth. We came peacefully, respectfully, and without threat to anyone — simply to stand on our homeland again. Today’s decision is not the end of the journey, but it is a moment of justice. It shows that the rule of law still matters, and that our voices cannot simply be ignored. We remain committed to pursuing our rights lawfully, with dignity and determination.”
The claimants have undertaken to issue a judicial review claim within seven days should the Commissioner decline to take the requested decisions.
The injunction is effective immediately.
READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN FULL:
SUPREME COURT
BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY
Before:
THE HONOURABLE JAMES LEWIS KC
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY
B E T W E E N:
THE KING, on the application of
(1) LOUIS MISLEY MANDARIN as himself and as First Minister
of the Chagossian Government, and through him his co-claimants are
(2) LOUIS MICHEL MANDARIN
(3) LOUIS ANTOINE LEMETTRE
(4) GUY SHANE ADRIEN CASTEL
Claimants
-V-
HIS MAJESTY’S COMMISSIONER FOR THE
BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY
Defendant
Lewis CJ
1. This is an urgent application for interim relief sought on an ‘immediates’ (and out-of-
hours suitable) basis. It is essentially an ex parte application on notice. There are at present
no representations before me from the Defendants. The Claimant has undertaken that an
N461 claim form shall be issued to commence judicial review proceedings within 7 days
absent the Defendant taking the decisions requested of her.
2. The very brief facts which I have taken verbatim from the application are:2
3. “On 8 October 2025 the Claimants’ solicitors raised the potential for a visit to be made to
the Chagos Islands, as native Chagossians. The email was sent to
BIOTAdmin@fco.gov.uk. An automatic response was received, from the British Indian
Ocean Territory Administration. Inter alia, it stated that “If your email relates to a yacht
permit application, please be aware that it can take up to 6 weeks from receipt of your
application to issue your permit”.
4. On 17 October 2025 a second email was sent, seeking a response without delay. Again,
an automated response was received.
5. On 23 October 2025 a response was provided, by email, that stated:
“This is a matter for the FCDO rather than the BIOT Administration.
However, I have liaised with the FCDO and they have indicated the following.
Chagossian visits to the Chagos Archipelago were paused in 2020 due to the
Covid-19 pandemic, after which there were the sovereignty negotiations.
Following the conclusion of negotiations, the UK is working with Mauritius to
initiate resumed visits to the Archipelago. However, no dates are available for
such visits at this moment.
More information will be available in due course.”
6. On 6 February 2026 an email was sent in terms:
“My client still awaits news on arranging a visit. The message below some 3
months ago promised more
information – please now supply it.
FCDO agreed with Mauritius to resume heritage visits in 2025, we are now in
2026 and there have been none.
Please respond by Monday with when my client can visit.”
7. On 16 February 2026, the Claimants, who are Chagossians by birth or descent (father and
son), and include the elected First Minister of the Chagossian Government-in-Exile1, Mr
Misley Mandarin, landed in their homeland, the Chagos Islands, also known as the BIOT2
.
His father Mr Michel Mandarin, 74, was removed from the island when he was 14.
11 https://fotbot.org/chagossians-announce-government-in-exile
2 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8w2jknnk0o3
8. They landed on an island situated 120 miles from the military base at Diego Garcia; on
Île du Coin, the largest island and part of the coral atoll of Peros Banhos. GB News
television reported on 19 February 2026 a statement of the Foreign Office in which the
UK government has already confirmed that they pose no security threat of any kind to the
base.
9. On 18 February 2026 a boat arrived at the landing site and issued to the Claimants
Removal Orders signed and issued by or on behalf of Acting Principal Immigration
Officer Pete Goddard [under section 12]. This is in terms that he “…Hereby Order that
you [named Claimant] being a person unlawfully present in the Territory shall be removed
from the Territory and shall remain out of the Territory until further notice”. It continues
that:
This order shall be carried into effect by the master of the vessel on which you
were carried into the Territory receiving you on board that vessel and conveying
you to a place outside the Territory (including its territorial sea).
If you breach this order and return to the Territory you will commit a criminal
offence and be liable on conviction to imprisonment for 3 years or to a fine of
£3,000, or to both such imprisonment and such fine. In addition, you may face
further penalties if you return to the Territory and commit further offences.
10. On the same day, and to the same email address as used for the BIOT Administration
previously, the Claimants’ solicitors sent a letter by which the Claimants appealed the
decision to issue the removal order notice taken by the immigration officer to the
Commissioner (pursuant to s.10 of the 2004 Immigration Order, set out below). The letter
also stated:
Further our clients have for many months been seeking a permit from you to
visit the islands, and so hereby ask you to immediately instruct your
immigration officer to issue a permit for our clients to be on the islands under
the Order permitting them to remain on the particular island they are on. If you
do not accept the appeal or grant the permit, we request written reasons for your
decision before any action is taken to remove our clients. We request an
undertaking and confirmation that no steps shall be taken to remove the
Mandarins from the islands or to detain them pending resolution of (a) the
decision-making requested, and (b) the outcome of any judicial proceedings
promptly lodged to challenge by way of judicial review any refusal to grant the
permit, or refusal to revoke the s12 notice.4
11. Today at 10.33am (on 19 February 2026) the Claimants’ solicitors wrote for a second
time. The letter (by email) referred to yesterday having appealed the deportation orders
issued by the Acting Principal Immigration Officer; and asked for a reply “by return with
an undertaking that no action to remove our clients will occur pending the outcome of our
appeal and any judicial proceedings to challenge by way of judicial review”.
12. At 15:02 hours today, having received no such undertaking, the Claimants’ solicitors
again emailed urgently, and the third letter indicated
Following our urgent letters to you of February 18th, and earlier today (by email
timed at 10.33am) we write for a third and final time. You will appreciate that
we have corresponded by this email address previously in the longstanding
requests for permits to attend the islands that we never received a substantive
decision in relation to.
An urgent issue is created by the decision of your Acting Principal Immigration
Officer to issue notices under s.12 of the Immigration Order 2004.
Given your failure to give an undertaking as sought (i.e. that no action to remove
our clients will occur pending the outcome of their appeal to you, and pending
any judicial proceedings to challenge by way of judicial review any refusal of
the permits under ss7 or 9, or of the appeal under s.10), we give notice that
absent such undertaking by 3.30pm we shall be seeking an urgent injunction
from the BIOT Supreme Court.
Please note that we require full reasons to be given for any decision that is taken
by the Commissioner.
Please confirm if this email should be used for service of the issued application
or proceedings or whether you prefer to nominate legal representation to accept
service.”
Judicial review grounds
13. The Claimant submits at this stage the grounds of challenge are:
i. The unreasonable delay or failure to exercise the power to grant a permit
or visitation.
ii. The unfair or arbitrary procedure adopted, or failure to follow due
procedure, in issuing of the section 12 notices.
iii. The unlawful act of removal and threat of removal, which involves:
1. The commission of a serious crime and so is a decision vitiated
by illegality; and/or
2. A decision that is not compliant with public law duties, including5
failing to consider all obviously relevant matters, and/or
irrational decision-making (process/outcome irrationality).
Decision
14. The test for interim relief in this case is that (1) there must be a serious issue to be tried
with a real prospect of success; and (2) the balance of convenience (balance of harm) must
favour the Claimant.
15. Given that in Bancoult (No.2) [2009] 1 AC 453 Lord Hoffman explained that “It is true
that the Chagossians will now require immigration consent even to visit the islands. But
the Government have made it clear that such visits, to tend graves and so forth, will be
allowed, and since in practice they are funded by the BIOT administration, immigration
consent will be no more than an additional formality.” the failure of the BIOT
administration to properly and timeously respond to the legitimate requests of the
Claimants, and the failure to address the question of appeal and the giving of reasons for
the s.12 notice give rise to a serious issue to be tried.
16. There is no doubt the balance of convenience falls on the side of the Claimants. They are
120 miles from Diego Garcia and pose no threat to national security on the evidence
before me. If they are deported they will have great difficulties in returning.
17. In my judgment the Claimants have made out their application in the light of no response
or engagement by the Commissioner.
18. It follows that I grant a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the s.12 notices.
This injunction will remain in place for 7 days to allow the Defendants to file a response.
In the absence of a response the injunction will remain in force until determination of the
judicial review application. At the expiry of 7 days I will make further order if the
Defendant files a response.
19. The Claimant should draw up such order for my consideration and sealing, and service,
by the Registrar, but as of now the injunction is in force. I allow service by email.
By The Court
