HM Attorney General v Matthews

Where the court has ample material to determine an application for permission to appeal, it may refuse a late adjournment sought to enable related judicial-review proceedings concerning legal aid. The court may consider the timing of the request and proceed on the existing skeleton argument, judgment and papers. Any permission decision may then affect a fresh legal-aid application.

The Divisional Court of the High Court, comprising Rose LJ and Moses J, considered the Attorney General’s application for an order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and gave its decision on 14 November 2000. Permission to appeal was refused. Dr Matthews promptly applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.

At the hearing, counsel sought an adjournment so that judicial-review proceedings could be brought against the Legal Services Commission concerning refusal of legal aid for the permission application. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should adjourn before deciding whether permission should be granted.

The Court of Appeal refused Dr Matthews’s application for an adjournment. In the judgment delivered by Lord Woolf CJ, the court held that the permission application could properly be considered on the existing materials.

1. The court had Mr Pickering’s skeleton argument, the Divisional Court’s judgment and all the papers relied upon below. Those materials provided ample basis for deciding whether permission to appeal should be granted.
2. The application for an adjournment had been initiated only on the Friday afternoon before the Monday hearing. Its purpose was to enable proposed judicial-review proceedings against the Legal Services Commission. In the circumstances, the lateness of the application and the available material made refusal of an adjournment appropriate.
3. The court also noted that Dr Matthews’s reported health difficulty had not been communicated to the court in any formal manner. Although counsel had not spoken to Dr Matthews personally, the court had received all assistance available from counsel.
4. If permission were granted, that result would have to be taken into account by the Legal Services Commission on any fresh legal-aid application. If permission were refused, the proposed judicial-review application against the Commission would be determined against Dr Matthews.

The supplied judgment ends before recording whether permission to appeal was ultimately granted or refused. It therefore establishes refusal of the adjournment, but not the final disposition of the permission application or the merits of the proposed appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 19 February 2001, the court refused the application to adjourn Dr Matthews’s permission application and proceeded to consider whether permission should be granted. The supplied text does not record the final permission order.
2. High Court, Divisional Court — On 14 November 2000, the court considered the Attorney General’s application for an order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and refused permission to appeal.