Thompson, R (on the application of) v Law Society

An appeal against a discretionary refusal to extend time is not a rehearing. Intervention is justified only where the judge erred in principle, left a material matter out of account, or reached a decision outside the reasonable range open to the court. In assessing whether an extension is worthwhile, the judge may consider both the length of the delay and the likely practical value of challenging the order. A circumstance not raised before the judge cannot ordinarily establish an error in the exercise of discretion.

The applicant had brought judicial review proceedings against the Law Society but did not proceed with them. Harrison J dismissed the application on 25 September 2001, awarded costs, and summarily assessed them at £3,069.39, allowing the applicant 28 days to challenge the assessment.

The applicant learned of the order in January 2002 and applied on 14 March 2002 for an extension of time. Scott Baker J refused the application, taking account of the delay and the limited likely benefit of a successful challenge. The applicant sought permission to appeal, contending that the discretion had been exercised wrongly.

Application dismissed; no order for costs. Lady Justice Arden held that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. An appeal against a discretionary refusal to extend time is not a rehearing. The appellate court may interfere only where the judge exercised the discretion on an erroneous basis, omitted a material consideration, or reached a conclusion outside the reasonable ambit of decision-making.
2. The delay was significant. The applicant had received the order in January 2002 but did not apply for an extension until approximately six weeks later, and did not seek a breakdown of the costs until March. As a solicitor, he should have appreciated the need to act promptly.
3. Scott Baker J was entitled to examine the disputed items and assess whether pursuing a challenge was worthwhile. His view that the likely maximum saving would be about half the bill was not unreasonable and was, if anything, generous.
4. The applicant’s mother’s illness could not demonstrate an error by the judge because it had not been raised before him and was absent from the applicant’s statements.

There was therefore no proper basis for attacking the exercise of discretion.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Scott Baker J refused an extension of time for challenging Harrison J’s summary assessment of costs.