Pinnock v Croydon Church Housing Association

Where an applicant fails to attend a renewed application and provides no explanation for the absence, the court may dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The court may defer sealing the order for a defined period after dispatch, allowing the applicant to provide written reasons and seek reinstatement. Reinstatement requires very cogent reasons; a formal application without substantive explanation is insufficient.

The Court of Appeal heard a renewed application arising from proceedings in the Croydon County Court. Mr Pinnock did not attend and gave no indication of any reason for his delay or inability to attend. The central procedural issue was whether the renewed application should be dismissed for want of prosecution and whether an opportunity should be provided for reinstatement.

1. Lord Justice Buxton dismissed the renewed application for want of prosecution because Mr Pinnock was absent and had provided no explanation for his failure to attend.
2. The dismissal was subject to a procedural condition. A copy of the order was to be sent to Mr Pinnock by first-class post, and the order was not to pass the seal until seven days after dispatch.
3. During that period, Mr Pinnock could apply in writing to explain why the matter should be reinstated. The court stated that reinstatement would require very cogent reasons; a merely formal application would be insufficient.
4. Order: application dismissed for want of prosecution.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application arising from proceedings in the Croydon County Court; application dismissed for want of prosecution. No citation for the lower court decision was stated.