Wilfred v HM Immigration Service

A renewed application for permission to appeal may be refused where the decision challenged is clearly right and the application is wholly without merit. Where an appropriate statutory remedy exists, it should be pursued rather than judicial review. A further adjournment should not be granted where it would only delay the proper processes.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by Simon Brown LJ sitting in the Administrative Court. Simon Brown LJ had refused the application. Laws LJ considered the matter on paper and concluded that the decision was clearly right and that the statutory remedy should have been pursued instead of judicial review. The applicant renewed the application for permission to appeal before Kay LJ. The applicant did not attend, and his solicitors had advised that the application was not capable of being argued.

Kay LJ refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. The decision of Simon Brown LJ was clearly right. The application was wholly without merit. That conclusion had been reached by Laws LJ on the papers, by the applicant’s own counsel, and independently by Kay LJ.
2. Laws LJ had also concluded that the applicant should have pursued the statutory remedy rather than judicial review. Kay LJ refused the application for exactly the same reasons, thereby adopting that conclusion in the circumstances of the case.
3. The court refused to adjourn the matter further. The applicant had been informed of the hearing and had not communicated any difficulty in attending. In the court’s assessment, an adjournment could do nothing other than delay the proper processes.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Kay LJ refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Administrative Court: Simon Brown LJ refused the applicant’s application for judicial review.