Bhamjee, Re an Application for Permission

Permission for judicial review requires a prompt application and an arguable error of law in the decision challenged. Where a claim is out of time and discloses no arguable error, permission should be refused and time should not be extended without a proper explanation.

The ordinary position is that a public body bears the costs of preparing its acknowledgment of service. The court may award the costs of an unnecessary oral renewal hearing where the claimant persisted after a clear refusal on the papers and a warning that continued pursuit would incur costs.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Legal Services Ombudsman’s decision of 12 December 2002. That decision concluded that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors had acted reasonably in investigating the claimant’s complaint against his former solicitors.

The application was lodged on 29 April 2003. Collins J refused permission on the papers, stating that the claim was hopeless and that there was no reason to extend time. The claimant renewed the application orally. The court also considered the defendant’s application for the costs of the acknowledgment of service and the renewal hearing.

1. The renewed application for permission was refused. The challenge was out of time, and the claimant gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay.

2. The claimant’s allegations of discrimination, concealment and non-compliance with an alleged historic order did not explain the delay or identify an arguable judicially reviewable error in the Legal Services Ombudsman’s decision. Even if the application had been prompt, the papers and submissions disclosed no conceivable error of law.

3. The court endorsed Collins J’s conclusion that the claim was hopeless. The claimant’s wider grievances could not enlarge the issue, which was confined to whether permission should be granted to challenge the specified decision of the Legal Services Ombudsman.

4. As to costs, the applicable practice direction meant that costs would not generally be ordered against a claimant following an unsuccessful oral renewal hearing, although exceptional cases were possible. The ordinary position was that a public body should bear the costs of preparing its acknowledgment of service.

5. After receiving the acknowledgment of service, Collins J’s order and a clear warning from the defendant’s solicitors, the claimant should not have persisted with an entirely hopeless renewal. The defendant was therefore awarded the costs of the renewal hearing, summarily assessed at £1,500 plus VAT. The costs of preparing the acknowledgment of service were not awarded.

   Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused. The transcript was ordered to be supplied to the Divisional Court for a later hearing concerning interim vexatious-litigant relief.

High Court (Administrative Court): Collins J refused permission on the papers. On renewal, Sullivan J refused permission and declined to extend time. The court awarded the defendant the costs of the oral renewal hearing only.