Idubo v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an appellate application, unexplained non-attendance may justify striking out for want of prosecution. The court may consider the applicant’s failure to remedy defects in the appeal materials and the lower court’s assessment that the proposed case presents no arguable ground. The application may therefore be disposed of without examining the substantive judicial-review claim.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from Mr Justice Moses’s decision of 28 November 2001 dismissing permission to move for judicial review. Sir Richard Tucker had previously dismissed the application on paper. The Court of Appeal considered the application in the applicant’s absence. The central issue was whether it should proceed when the applicant had not attended and had given no explanation.

Lord Justice Buxton struck out the application for want of prosecution.

1. The applicant did not attend the hearing and had provided no explanation for his absence.
2. The court had recently attempted to contact him to rectify defects in his bundle. That procedural failure formed part of the context in which the application was considered.
3. The court also had regard to Mr Justice Moses’s observations below that no arguable ground had been advanced and that there was no possible advantage in allowing the proposed argument to proceed.
4. Taking those matters together, the Court of Appeal ordered that the application be struck out for want of prosecution.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application was struck out for want of prosecution on 22 April 2002.
• Administrative Court: Mr Justice Moses dismissed the application for permission to move for judicial review on 28 November 2001.
• Earlier stage: Sir Richard Tucker had dismissed the application on paper on 15 October 2001.