Bhamjee v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor

An extension of time to appeal will be refused where the delay is very substantial and the applicant provides no adequate justification, whether the asserted reasons are considered individually or cumulatively. A party wishing to challenge an order should raise the challenge within the application for permission to appeal against the operative judgment or order governing the litigation. Costs orders are discretionary. Permission to appeal requires identification of an arguable error of law or another basis demonstrating a real prospect of success.

The applicant sought an extension of approximately 17 months and permission to appeal against part of an order made by Scott Baker J on 25 October 2000. That order permitted amendment of the claim and reserved costs. The subsequent claim was dismissed by Sullivan J on 23 January 2001, who ordered the applicant to pay the Secretary of State’s costs. Permission to appeal against that decision was refused.

The applicant relied on matters including the absence of a transcript, assumptions about earlier permission decisions, references to the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

1. Application refused. The applicant’s delay of approximately 17 months in challenging the October 2000 order was unexplained by any sufficient justification. The matters relied on did not justify the delay, either separately or cumulatively.
2. The applicant should have included any challenge to the October 2000 order in his application for permission to appeal against Sullivan J’s decision. Sullivan J’s later costs order was the governing order for the costs of the entire litigation and subsumed the earlier order reserving costs.
3. In any event, the proposed challenge had no real prospect of success. Costs orders are matters for the discretion of the court. The applicant identified no error of law and no reason why the earlier judge should have made a more favourable costs order.
4. Accordingly, both the application for an extension of time and the application for permission to appeal were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the application for an extension of time and permission to appeal against part of the order of Scott Baker J.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Scott Baker J made the order dated 25 October 2000 permitting amendment and reserving costs. Sullivan J subsequently dismissed the claim on 23 January 2001 and ordered the applicant to pay costs.