R, R. (on the application of)

The Administrative Court may strike out an application where it has been pursued with inexcusable delay and the applicant has failed to provide evidence or comply with procedural requirements. An adjournment should be refused where there is no sufficient material showing that the application raises a real issue or that further time would result in proper preparation. A renewed application may be permitted only if supported by evidence addressing the substantive claim, the failure to attend the original hearing and the practical benefit of the relief sought. Costs may be ordered personally against a solicitor whose failure to progress the matter has caused the hearing to be wasted.

The application concerned a receivership order made in confiscation proceedings against Mr R. The order declared that certain properties were jointly owned by Mr R and Gerania Muskova, who had been convicted of money laundering in relation to his proceeds of crime.

Ms Muskova sought to vary the order on the ground that she was the sole owner of the properties and had not been notified of the hearing. Her application had remained outstanding for approximately nine months, without supporting evidence, a bundle or a skeleton argument. At the hearing, her solicitor sought an adjournment. The issues were whether the application should proceed, whether an adjournment should be granted and who should bear the resulting costs.

1. Strike out. The application was struck out because it had been pursued with inexcusable delay. No evidence, bundle or skeleton argument had been filed, despite repeated requests and an appreciation of the need to provide those materials.
2. The alleged failure to receive notice of the hearing was inconsistent with the evidence previously placed before the court and the confirmation of service. The court also accepted that notice of the hearing had been served. After the delay, cross-examination on that issue would have been difficult.
3. An adjournment was refused. The court was wholly unconvinced that a short adjournment would produce a properly prepared application. There was no evidence capable of raising a sufficient issue about sole ownership, no adequate explanation for the failure to respond to the original proceedings and no evidence that success would improve Ms Muskova’s net financial position rather than merely increase the confiscation order against her.
4. A further application would be considered only if supported by a witness statement setting out the factual basis of the alleged sole ownership, explaining the failure to appear at the original hearing and showing that the outcome could leave Ms Muskova with assets of her own.
5. The Crown Prosecution Service was awarded £3,000 in costs. The order was made against the solicitor personally because the hearing had been wasted by his failure to progress the application and his decision to keep it alive despite being unable to comply with the court’s procedures.
6. Any further application had to be made within fourteen days. If none was made, the receiver was free to proceed. Permission to appeal was refused.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.