Singh, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department

Where an application for permission to appeal may be followed by a substantive judicial review, a short adjournment may be appropriate to resolve legal aid arrangements and secure representation for both stages. Concerns about delay and wasted time remain relevant, but do not necessarily outweigh the need for a properly argued hearing. The substantive judicial review should proceed only if permission to appeal is granted.

The applicant sought permission to appeal an order made by Elias J in the Administrative Court on 14 February 2001. Schiemann LJ had adjourned the paper application into court and directed that the Home Office be notified.

The parties had been told that, if permission were granted, the matter should proceed immediately as an application for judicial review under Rule 52.15(3) before a single Lord Justice sitting as a judge of the Administrative Court. On the hearing date, the applicant’s solicitor explained that counsel was unavailable because legal aid for the permission hearing had only been confirmed that morning, while funding for the substantive judicial review had not been granted. The respondent opposed a short adjournment and also opposed reliance on further evidence. The central issue was whether the hearing should be adjourned to resolve representation and funding arrangements.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the application for permission to appeal to 19 December 2001 before a single Lord Justice. If permission were granted, the substantive application for judicial review was to follow before that judge sitting as a member of the Administrative Court.

1. The court considered that a short adjournment was suitable to ensure that the legal aid position could be resolved.
2. The purpose was to enable counsel to appear and argue both the permission application and, if permission were granted, the substantive judicial review. Proper representation for the linked stages justified the adjournment.
3. The respondent’s objections based on further delay and wasted time did not outweigh the practical need to secure an effective hearing.
4. The court’s order was procedural. It did not determine whether permission should ultimately be granted, whether the judicial review would succeed, or whether the proposed further evidence should be admitted.

The formal order was that the application for permission to appeal was adjourned to a single Lord Justice on 19 December, with the substantive judicial review to follow if permission was granted.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Elias J made the order under challenge on 14 February 2001. No citation for that order is stated.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1884, the application was adjourned to a single Lord Justice on 19 December 2001, with substantive judicial review to follow if permission was granted.