Richards v Somerset County Council

Where an ex parte application for permission to appeal, an extension of time or admission of fresh evidence raises serious allegations against the respondent and relies on potentially material evidence, the court should ordinarily adjourn the application for an inter partes hearing. The respondent should have an opportunity to answer allegations which may affect the applications. The court should neither grant the relief without hearing the respondent nor refuse the applications outright where the supporting material may be relevant. Procedural fairness requires each party to be heard on relevant issues before a decision is made.

The applicant sought permission to appeal out of time against preliminary-issue decisions of the Lands Tribunal dated 25 September 2000. He also sought permission to adduce new documentary and oral evidence.

The applications were made ex parte. The respondent had not been served or represented. The applicant alleged that material evidence had been concealed and that evidence before the Lands Tribunal was untrue or seriously misleading. The central issue was whether the applications should be determined immediately or adjourned for an inter partes hearing.

1. The three applications were adjourned for determination between the parties. The respondent had not been served and had no opportunity to answer serious allegations concerning the conduct of the litigation and the evidence before the Lands Tribunal.
2. The court should not grant permission to appeal, an extension of time or permission to adduce fresh evidence without hearing the respondent. The respondent might have relevant submissions which could lead to refusal of the applications.
3. It would nevertheless be wrong to refuse the applications outright. The allegations were serious, and the documents and oral statements relied upon might be relevant to whether permission should be granted, whether the fresh evidence should be admitted and whether time should be extended.
4. The adjourned hearing was to take place inter partes before two Lords Justices. The applicant was required to serve the appellant’s notice and supporting documents on the respondent. The respondent was directed to lodge and serve a skeleton argument at least two weeks before the hearing.
5. The court warned the applicant that pursuing the applications could reactivate the earlier unpaid costs order and expose him to further costs. Success on the applications would not guarantee success on any appeal, since permission depends on the prospects of an appeal.

The orders reflected the basic tenet of justice that decisions should not be made without hearing each party on the relevant issues.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Earlier unsuccessful applications were made on 4 February 2002 and 9 May 2003. On the present applications, the court adjourned them for an inter partes hearing before two Lords Justices.
• Lands Tribunal: Preliminary-issue decisions dated 25 September 2000 were the subject of the proposed appeal. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.