Roshdy, R (on the application of) v City Of Westminister Council

For judicial review, the three-month time limit runs from when the grounds for the claim first arose. A claimant cannot postpone that starting point by waiting for a public authority to answer correspondence. An extension requires an acceptable explanation for the delay. Where the delay is substantial and no good reason is shown, permission to proceed out of time should be refused, even if the underlying planning dispute may contain an unresolved inconsistency.

Mrs Roshdy sought permission to appeal against Scott Baker J’s refusal to allow her to apply out of time for judicial review. The proposed claim concerned the City Council’s refusal to withdraw an enforcement notice issued in April 1994. The notice addressed alterations to garage doors and the use of one garage as living accommodation. Mrs Roshdy had exercised her statutory right of appeal against the notice. She alleged that the relevant refusal occurred on 8 November 1999, but lodged Form 86A on 20 July 2000. The central issue was whether the delay could be excused because the Council had responded to her correspondence only later.

Application dismissed. Lord Justice Sedley, sitting alone, refused permission to appeal because an appeal against Scott Baker J’s decision had no significant prospect of success.

1. The proposed judicial review was substantially out of time. The enforcement notice had been issued in April 1994, and the alleged refusal to withdraw it was dated, at the latest, November 1999. Form 86A was not lodged until 20 July 2000.
2. The three-month period under the Civil Procedure Rules runs from the time when the grounds for the claim first arose. It is not postponed until the local authority replies to correspondence. The later response of 26 July 2000 to a letter sent on 10 November 1999 therefore did not extend time.
3. No acceptable reason for the substantial delay had been placed before either the Administrative Court or the Court of Appeal. The court accordingly refused to enlarge the time limit.
4. An earlier Form 86A, allegedly lodged on 21 September 1999, could not assist because it concerned a different decision. The court acknowledged that the Council’s earlier position before the planning inspector might appear inconsistent with its later position, but any contradiction had to be addressed through the Council and the planning system rather than by this out-of-time judicial review.

The application was refused. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused because the proposed appeal had no significant prospect of success; application dismissed. [2001] EWCA Civ 246.
2. Administrative Court: Scott Baker J refused permission to apply for judicial review out of time. The citation is not stated in the judgment.