Ghadami v Harlow District Council

An appellate court should be slow to interfere with a case-management decision, particularly one made by an experienced judge. Intervention is justified where the decision fails to account for earlier directions governing preparation for the hearing, or is made without all relevant facts. A fixture should not defeat directions requiring a core bundle and skeleton arguments to be prepared and considered. A short adjournment may be required to restore a fair and workable timetable, although a party remains responsible for progressing its case and securing representation.

The claimant sought judicial review of a planning committee resolution to grant permission for a large shopping-centre development. Sullivan J made a rolled-up order and directed the claimant to prepare a core bundle, with skeleton arguments to follow under Practice Direction 54.15. Collins J refused to vacate a fixture on 23 June 2004 despite the resulting pressure on preparation and counsel availability. The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether that case-management decision should stand when the judge had not been fully apprised of the earlier directions and the availability of junior counsel.

1. Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Ward gave the leading judgment, and Sir Martin Nourse agreed.
2. An appellate court should be very slow to interfere with a case-management decision. However, intervention was justified because Collins J had not fully appreciated the effect of Sullivan J’s directions concerning the core bundle and skeleton arguments, and had not been given all relevant information about counsel’s availability.
3. The earlier directions required sufficient time for preparation and for the judge to consider the parties’ skeleton arguments. The fixture on 23 June was inconsistent with that timetable. It was therefore wrong to fix the hearing without proper regard to the directions given when permission was granted. The court was entitled to consider a short adjournment.
4. The claimant had to prosecute the judicial review with expedition. If he could not secure his preferred leading counsel because of poor management, the court was not required to remedy that difficulty. That did not justify ignoring the availability of instructed junior counsel or the need for a fair timetable.
5. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the hearing was directed to be fixed for 15 and 16 July 2004. The defendant and interested party were directed to serve skeleton arguments, the claimant was directed to file a core bundle and skeleton argument, and the defendants were given liberty to file a supplementary bundle. There was no order as to costs below. The claimant’s appeal costs were to be assessed.

1. High Court, Administrative Court: Collins J refused the claimant’s application to vacate the fixture for the judicial review hearing.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed and the hearing was directed to be relisted for 15 and 16 July 2004: [2004] EWCA Civ 891.