BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [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 >> Bhamjee v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 987 (21 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/987.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 987

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


Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 987
C/2002/0574

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST
(Mr Justice Scott Baker)

The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
Friday 21 June 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE DYSON
____________________

Between:
ISMAIL ABULHAI BHAMJEE Claimant/Applicant
and:
(1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRNOMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
(2) NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL Defendants/Respondents

____________________


The Applicant did not appear and was not represented
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Friday 20 June 2002

  1. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Mr Bhamjee seeks an extension of time and permission to appeal part of the order made by Scott Baker J on 25 October 2000 in the proceedings CO/3606/2000. On that occasion the judge granted him permission to amend his claim form and to file and serve it on the defendants within seven days; and he ordered that there be no further directions other than that costs be reserved. My understanding is that the reason for making no further directions was that he decided that the further steps in the Bhamjee case should await the outcome of the Alconbury decision.
  2. Eventually the matter was heard before Sullivan J and Mr Bhamjee's claim was dismissed on 23 January 2001. It is unnecessary for the purposes of today's application to go into the issues that arose in that case. Suffice to say that Mr Bhamjee sought permission to appeal the decision of Sullivan J and I refused that on 29 June 2001. Having dismissed the application, Sullivan J then ordered Mr Bhamjee to pay the Secretary of State's costs, which he assessed summarily in the sum of £9,882.50. It does not appear that there was any specific reference on that occasion to the order reserving the costs made on 25 October 2000, but that order must be taken to have been taken into account and subsumed in the order made by Sullivan J on 23 January 2001.
  3. Mr Bhamjee acknowledges that he requires an extension of time of something of the order of 17 months in which to bring this appeal against that limited order made on 25 October 2000. The justification that he advances for not having sought permission to appeal during that long period is set out in section 10 of his notice of appeal. He makes a number of points, which include the fact that neither Sullivan J nor I had a transcript of the judgment of 25 October; that the Treasury solicitors did not provide notes of the judgment taken by them on that occasion; that he assumed that the Court of Appeal would have given him permission to appeal on 29 June 2001, and indeed on a later occasion when an application for permission to appeal against a decision of Gibbs J was also refused by me, on 28 February 2002. Mr Bhamjee also makes references to the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and the fact that he has made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.
  4. It seems to me that none of these points, either individually or cumulatively, can possibly amount to a justification for his failure to challenge the order that was made for a period as long as 17 months. If he was minded to challenge that order, then he should have included that in his application for permission to appeal against the decision of Sullivan J, since it was that order for costs which, as I have said, was the governing order dealing with the costs of the entire litigation.
  5. I would therefore refuse this application on the simple ground that this is not a case in which it would be right to grant the extension of time sought, but I would go on to say that in any event I am quite satisfied that even if this were a case in which it was appropriate to grant an extension of time, Mr Bhamjee has no real prospect of succeeding in challenging the order that costs be reserved. He has identified no error of law in the order that was made. Costs orders are in the discretion of the court. It seems to me that Mr Bhamjee has identified no reason today to indicate why the judge should have made any order for costs more favourable to him than the one which the judge in fact made.
  6. Accordingly, for all these reasons, I would refuse this application for permission to appeal.
  7. ORDER: Applications refused


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/987.html