Hoath's Application For Judicial Review

A further appeal will not be permitted where the applicant seeks to reopen issues that have already been considered and should have been raised earlier. A Grepe v Loam order may restrict a litigant’s right to an oral hearing, provided the restriction is reasonable and proportionate. Convention rights under articles 6 and 8 do not prevent proportionate case-management restrictions or measures affecting enjoyment of the home. Permission to appeal must also satisfy the stringent statutory test in section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

John Hoath sought permission to appeal from orders made by Neuberger J in the Chancery Division in bankruptcy proceedings. The orders refused applications to review an earlier restriction on further applications, rejected a contempt application, upheld a possession order and refused permission to raise points concerning section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and service of the original proceedings. An adjournment had also been refused.

The applicant was absent because he had gone to hospital. The Court of Appeal proceeded in light of the history and the respondents’ representation. The central issues were whether previously considered matters could be reopened, whether the case-management decisions and restrictions complied with Convention rights, and whether the statutory test for a further appeal was met.

1. Application dismissed. The Court proceeded despite the applicant’s absence because the history was clear and the respondents were represented. There was no prospect of a further appeal succeeding.
2. The applicant was attempting to reopen in 2001 issues which, as the Court of Appeal had indicated in 1995, should have been raised in 1991 when he sought to set aside the statutory demand. The points concerning section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and defective service had not been ignored by the earlier courts; they had been considered repeatedly.
3. A Grepe v Loam order can restrict a litigant’s right to an oral hearing. Such a restriction is compatible with article 6 where it is reasonable and proportionate. The orders in this case met that standard.
4. Reliance on the Human Rights Act 1998 did not assist the applicant. Article 8 rights relating to enjoyment of the home are not absolute. District Judge Polden and Neuberger J had considered articles 8 and 6 of the Convention.
5. The refusal to adjourn was within the judge’s case-management discretion. The history of the listings and prior adjournment decisions provided no basis for appellate intervention.
6. The application did not satisfy the stringent test imposed by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and had no realistic prospect of success. Permission to appeal was dismissed, with costs subject to detailed assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the refusal by Neuberger J to reopen the bankruptcy issues, the possession order, the restrictions on further applications and the refusal of an adjournment.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: Neuberger J refused five applications, including applications concerning review of an earlier order, contempt proceedings, the possession order, permission to make further bankruptcy applications and transfer of the proceedings.