Her Majesty's Attorney General v Boothe-Chambers

An application for permission to appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the applicant, having been notified of the hearing, neither responds nor attends. Where the applicant is a litigant in person, fairness may require the dismissal order to remain open for a short period so that the applicant can seek reconsideration. Reconsideration requires cogent reasons for the failure to attend.

Mr Boothe-Chambers sought permission to appeal against an order made by the Divisional Court on 14 June 2001 imposing a vexatious litigant order. He had been notified of the Court of Appeal hearing by letter but did not respond and did not attend. The Court therefore had to determine the appropriate procedural consequence of his non-attendance and whether any opportunity for reconsideration should be provided.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Buxton dismissed the application for permission to appeal for want of prosecution. The applicant had been notified of the hearing, had not responded, and was absent.
2. The Court was entitled in those circumstances to strike out the application. The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying vexatious litigant order.
3. Because the applicant was a litigant in person, the dismissal order was to be served by first-class post and left in the Court office for 14 days. This permitted him to make submissions explaining why the order should be reconsidered.
4. Any reconsideration would require cogent reasons for the failure to attend. The allowance of that opportunity did not alter the operative order that the application was dismissed.

• Divisional Court: Order dated 14 June 2001 imposing a vexatious litigant order on Mr Boothe-Chambers.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal dismissed for want of prosecution under [2001] EWCA Civ 1464 . The order was left in the Court office for 14 days to permit submissions seeking reconsideration.