Queensbridge Investments Ltd

An application for permission to appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the applicant fails to comply with a direction to report progress and does not respond to notice requiring an explanation. The court may make a conditional order allowing a short period for the applicant to confirm that the application will proceed without delay. If the required confirmation is not received, the application may stand dismissed without further order. The court may also make no order as to costs.

Queensbridge Investments Ltd sought permission to appeal against Mr Justice Newman’s refusal on 28 July 2000 of an application for judicial review. The challenge concerned the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s refusal to make grants of approximately £25,000 for each of nine flats.

Lord Justice Pill initially refused permission on the papers but identified missing documents. An oral renewal was adjourned after the applicants’ solicitors stated that the council had agreed that a new application for the grants could be submitted. The applicants were directed to report progress by 28 February 2001. No report or response was received, and the matter came before Master Venne to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

1. Failure to prosecute. The applicants did not provide the progress report required by the earlier direction. They also failed to respond to the subsequent notice requiring them to show cause why the application should not be dismissed. Neither the applicants nor the respondent attended the hearing.
2. Conditional dismissal. Master Venne ordered that, unless a progress report was received within seven days of sealing the order and confirmed that the application would proceed to an oral hearing without delay, the application would stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further order.
3. Costs. The order was made with no order as to costs.

The application was therefore subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless the specified report was received within the seven-day period.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 597, Master Venne made a conditional order that the application would stand dismissed for want of prosecution unless the required progress report was received within seven days.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 24 November, Lord Justice Pill refused permission to appeal on the papers. The oral renewal was later adjourned.
• High Court: Mr Justice Newman refused the application for judicial review on 28 July 2000.