Robinson v Child Support Agency

Judicial review applications must be made promptly and, in any event, within three months of the decision challenged, subject to the court’s limited power to extend time. An extension is inappropriate where the delay is measured in years, particularly where the matters complained of have already been considered in other proceedings. Strong allegations against a public body or the courts do not justify relief without detailed documentary support. Where delay is decisive and the proposed relief is unarguable, permission and an extension of time should be refused.

Mr Timothy Robinson sought judicial review of the Child Support Agency’s conduct concerning maintenance assessments and his continuing denial of paternity. The agency relied on an earlier magistrates’ court order adjudging him to be the child’s father. Gibbs J refused permission on the papers. Wilkie J subsequently refused permission at an oral hearing because the complaint concerned decisions made many years earlier and no extension of time was justified. The renewed application to the Court of Appeal sought permission to appeal and an extension of time.

The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for permission to appeal and for an extension of time.

1. Time limit. Lord Justice Pill adopted Wilkie J’s reasoning that judicial review must be sought promptly and, in any event, within three months of the decision challenged. Although the court may extend time in some circumstances, an extension was inappropriate where delays of approximately fifteen and a half years and four years and nine months would be required, particularly since the matters complained of had been the subject of proceedings in other courts.
2. Application to the claim. The claim, issued in June 2005, challenged conduct and decisions dating from 1990 to 2000. The delay was therefore sufficient to dispose of the application without examining the substantive merits. Pill LJ agreed that it was unarguable that the requested relief would be granted after a full hearing.
3. Further observations. The claimant’s strong sense of grievance did not alter the result. His serious allegations against the courts and the Child Support Agency lacked detailed documentary support. Pill LJ did not determine the underlying paternity or jurisdiction arguments. He emphasised the public interest in bringing judicial review claims promptly. The application for an extension of time and for further relief on appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2006] EWCA Civ 514, Lord Justice Pill refused the renewed application for permission to appeal and the application for an extension of time.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): Wilkie J refused permission on 21 October 2005 because the judicial review claim was substantially out of time.
• Earlier permission decision: Gibbs J had refused permission on the papers.