[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Secretary Of State For Home Department v Iyangaran [2002] EWCA Civ 1062 (10 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1062.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1062

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 10th July 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: This matter comes before me today, first, as an application to extend time in which to seek permission to appeal from an order of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Lord Justice Tuckey on 24th May 2002. That decision was communicated to solicitors acting for the applicant under cover of a letter dated 24th May 2002 which, as Mr Cox points out, was received by those solicitors on the following day because it is so date-stamped. So far as the applicant is concerned, he contends that he knew nothing of that decision or of the limited opportunity to renew the application orally until some time later.
2. On 14th June he was detained with a view to removal from this jurisdiction and thereafter, on 20th June, he was informed by the solicitors then acting for him that there would be no further possibility of appeal in his case after which he managed to obtain the services of his present solicitors. On 28th June an application was made to Lord Justice Brooke for an extension of time and that application was rejected for reasons which he then gave.
3. At the present time there is a distinct lack of information as to what happened on or after 25th May 2002 in relation to the decision made by Lord Justice Tuckey. In order to explore that issue it would be necessary for the applicant to waive privilege so far as his former solicitors were concerned, and for those now acting for the applicant to obtain from those former solicitors an account of the steps which they took, if any, to bring the decision of Lord Justice Tuckey to the notice of their client and to decide what to do in relation to that decision, in particular within the
4. period of seven days allowed within the rules for an application for a hearing in relation to such an order.
5. Mr Cox, realising the difficulty in which he is at present, has asked for an adjournment so that that may be explored. He came here today believing that he did not have to deal with a difficulty in relation to time but he is now satisfied that, of course, he does.
6. I am prepared to give a very limited amount of time in which to enable Mr Cox and those instructing him to make the sort of inquiries to which I have just referred. Any additional material which he and those instructing him wish to place before the court must be before the court not later than Friday 19th July and the matter will be available for relisting with effect from the following Monday 22nd July.
Order: Application adjourned with no decision re costs