Five Nepalese Asylum Seekers, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

The Court of Appeal may refuse permission to appeal where an applicant did not attend the Administrative Court hearing, the grounds of appeal are wholly unspecific and inadequate, and the relevant Practice Direction has not been complied with, if the proposed appeal has no prospect of success. In that combination of circumstances, pursuing the application may constitute an abuse of the court’s process. Procedural fairness is assessed on the material before the court: an adjournment may be refused where the papers suffice for a fair determination, but granted where a pressing personal difficulty is supported by evidence.

Five Nepalese asylum-seekers sought permission to appeal against decisions arising from refusals by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to permit appeals from adjudicators who had rejected material parts of their accounts. The applications followed proceedings in the Administrative Court. Four applicants had not attended the relevant hearing and advanced wholly unspecific grounds. One applicant sought an adjournment because his wife was in hospital for childbirth; another cited language difficulties and an incomplete bundle. The central issues were whether the applications should be determined or adjourned, and whether the proposed appeals disclosed arguable grounds and had any prospect of success.

Disposition

Lord Justice Brooke dismissed applications 1638, 2386, 2613 and 2626. Application 2612 was adjourned to be refixed on the first open day on or after 19 February. There was no order for costs.

Permission to appeal

Brooke LJ treated the five matters as materially identical to the nine applications dealt with in his earlier judgment, [2003] EWCA(Civ) 1892. He relied on the reasons given in that judgment and did not repeat the reasoning set out in paragraphs 3 to 7.

In each application decided, the applicant had been absent from the Administrative Court hearing and then sought to appeal against a judgment delivered without his attendance. The grounds of appeal were wholly unspecific and inadequate and did not comply with the relevant Practice Direction. Brooke LJ held that each application was an abuse of the process of the Court of Appeal and totally devoid of merit. Since the proposed appeals had no prospect of success, permission to appeal was refused.

Adjournment

Application 2612 was adjourned because the applicant supplied medical reports concerning his wife, whose expected delivery date was ten days away, and gave a personal reason for being unable to attend. Brooke LJ refused the adjournment sought by 2626 because the papers contained all documents needed to deal with the application fairly. He also recorded that Beatson J had dismissed that application for lack of an arguable appeal or public-law challenge, and because it was out of time with an inadequate explanation for delay.

1. Administrative Court. The applications were heard before Richards J, Collins J, Judge Wilkie QC, Owen J and Beatson J. The relevant applicants did not attend. Beatson J dismissed No. 2626 on 19 November 2003, finding no arguable ground of appeal or public-law challenge and also identifying delay and an inadequate explanation.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Lord Justice Brooke refused permission to appeal in four applications and adjourned application 2612 to the first open day on or after 19 February.