Pedley, R (on the application of) v Birmingham County Court

An extension of time requires an adequate explanation for the delay. The court may assess delay cumulatively, including earlier procedural delay. Judicial review is not an appropriate route for challenging county court decisions where ordinary appellate remedies exist. Intervention requires a public-law error, such as a breach of natural justice or other ultra vires conduct. Allegations of fraud must be supported by clear evidence. Unsupported assertions and newspaper cuttings do not establish a viable basis for quashing a decision. Judges may manage hearings to prevent unnecessary consumption of court resources, provided that natural justice is maintained.

Mr Pedley sought judicial review of decisions by county court judges concerning solicitors’ costs. The decisions were made between February 1998 and November 1999, but the judicial review proceedings were not commenced until 30 November 1999.

Mitchell J made a decision on 20 March 2000. Permission to appeal and an extension of time were refused on the documents by Sedley LJ on 31 October 2000. Mr Pedley renewed the application. The central issues were whether the delay should be excused and whether the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, including the alleged fraud, natural justice and ultra vires arguments.

Lord Justice Keene dismissed the renewed application and refused the extension of time.

1. Absence and adjournment. Although the medical evidence indicated that Mr Pedley had significant health problems, it gave no indication that he would soon be fit to attend. No doctor’s certificate had been provided. In the circumstances, and given the history of delay, it was contrary to the interests of justice to adjourn the matter further. The court was entitled to determine the application on the documents.
2. Delay. The application for permission to appeal was almost four months late. No adequate explanation had been given, despite the issue having been identified by Sedley LJ. The delay had to be viewed against the earlier delay in commencing judicial review proceedings, which were outside the normal three-month time limit under RSC Order 54 rule 4 for all but the latest decision.
3. Judicial review and case management. Judicial review was not an appropriate process for challenging the county court decisions. None of the judges appeared to have acted in breach of natural justice or otherwise ultra vires. Judges are entitled to manage their courts to avoid unnecessary consumption of time and resources. Cutting short arguments did not, on the material available, establish procedural unfairness.
4. Fraud. The fraud allegations were supported only by newspaper cuttings. Clear evidence was required. Mere assertion was insufficient, so the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

The renewed application was dismissed and the extension of time refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Keene LJ dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal and refused an extension of time.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Sedley LJ had previously refused permission to appeal and an extension of time on the documents on 31 October 2000.
3. Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): Mitchell J made the decision under challenge on 20 March 2000.