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

A court may refuse a late application to adjourn proceedings so that an unrepresented party can seek publicly funded representation. Relevant considerations include the party’s explanation for not applying sooner, the timing of the legal-aid application, the notice given to the court, the history of delay and the interests of justice. A request made only shortly before the hearing may be refused where the applicant had known of the proceedings for several months and further delay would be unjustified.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against Sullivan J’s refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his asylum appeal. His notice seeking permission to appeal was filed six days late.

At the Court of Appeal hearing, the applicant appeared in person and requested an adjournment to obtain legal aid and representation. He had applied for legal aid several months after Sullivan J’s order and had notified the court of his adjournment request only shortly before the hearing. The immediate question was whether the proceedings should be adjourned for that purpose.

1. Application for an adjournment refused. Pill LJ held that the applicant’s wish to obtain legal aid did not justify an adjournment in the circumstances. The applicant had filed his notice seeking permission to appeal several months earlier and had subsequently prepared a document bundle in accordance with a court order. Nevertheless, he did not apply for legal aid until 15 November and did not explain adequately why he had failed to do so sooner.

2. The request was also made at a very late stage. The applicant’s letter seeking an adjournment was dated 3 December and received on 5 December, only two days before the hearing. His statement that he had not understood the position did not provide a sufficient reason for the delay, given his earlier conduct of the proceedings.

3. The wider procedural history reinforced the conclusion. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had decided the underlying appeal in November 1997, but the applicant did not seek permission to apply for judicial review until February 2001. Sullivan J had refused permission because the application was manifestly out of time and an abuse of process. Although that ruling formed the background, Pill LJ determined only the adjournment request in this judgment.

4. Having regard to the prolonged history of delay, the late legal-aid application and the minimal notice given to the court, Pill LJ concluded that a further adjournment would not be in the interests of justice.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the application recorded at [2001] EWCA Civ 1915, Pill LJ refused the applicant’s request to adjourn the permission-to-appeal hearing so that he could seek legal aid and representation.

2. High Court, Administrative Court: Sullivan J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 15 June 2001. He considered the challenge to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s November 1997 decision to be manifestly out of time and an abuse of process.

3. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: The Tribunal granted permission to appeal from the Special Adjudicator but dismissed the substantive appeal on 24 November 1997.

4. Special Adjudicator: The applicant’s asylum appeal was dismissed following a hearing held in his and his representative’s absence.