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

A relisting application under Civil Procedure Rules 23.11 may be refused where the proposed appeal has no prospect of success and no reason exists for rehearing it by another Lord Justice. Repeated adjournment requests and non-attendance may reinforce that conclusion. Where further relisting applications would amount to an abuse of process, the Court of Appeal may direct its office not to accept them.

The applicant sought judicial review of Westminster City Council’s refusal to withdraw an enforcement notice. Scott-Baker J refused permission to apply for judicial review because the application was hopelessly out of time. Sedley LJ subsequently refused permission to appeal, holding that the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.

The applicant then sought to have the matter relisted under Civil Procedure Rules 23.11(2), after making repeated unsuccessful applications for adjournments. She again did not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether the matter should be relisted and whether further relisting applications should be permitted.

Lord Justice Tuckey dismissed the application to relist and made no order for costs.

1. The applicant’s proposed appeal had no merit. Sedley LJ had already refused permission to appeal because it had no prospect of success, and Tuckey LJ agreed with that assessment.
2. The applicant’s repeated applications for adjournments, followed by further requests to withdraw the matter from the list and obtain representation, provided no reason for rehearing the application before another Lord Justice. The fact that she again failed to attend did not justify relisting.
3. The power under Civil Procedure Rules 23.11(2) did not require the Court to grant a relisting application. In the circumstances, the present application was refused.
4. Tuckey LJ stated that any further application to relist would amount to an abuse of process. To prevent repeated applications consuming the Court’s time, he directed that no further applications to relist the case should be accepted by the Court of Appeal office.

Application dismissed; no order for costs.

1. Administrative Court: Scott-Baker J refused permission to apply for judicial review, treating the application as hopelessly out of time.
2. Court of Appeal: Sedley LJ refused permission to appeal because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.
3. Court of Appeal: On the relisting application under Civil Procedure Rules 23.11(2), Tuckey LJ dismissed the application and directed that no further relisting applications be accepted.