James v Powys County Council

A renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review may be adjourned where an unrepresented claimant is medically unfit to attend, particularly where medical evidence supports the inability to attend. The court should generally give an unrepresented litigant who is unwell the benefit of any doubt. That discretion must be balanced against the need for certainty for the public authority and interested parties. Where illness continues for a considerable period, the court may consider proceeding on the papers or in the claimant’s absence, while allowing further written representations where appropriate.

The claimant sought renewed permission to apply for judicial review concerning planning permission for the first of three properties on a site. An earlier challenge to the outline planning permission had been refused by Wyn Williams J, and an appeal was said to be pending. The renewed application was refused on paper by HHJ Jarman and was said to be out of time.

The claimant sought an adjournment to provide further information and pursue discussions with the council. That request was refused before the hearing. He subsequently produced a medical certificate stating that severe stress prevented his attendance. The issue before the court was whether the renewed application should proceed or be adjourned.

1. Application adjourned. The court did not determine the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review because the claimant was unwell and had produced a medical certificate supporting his inability to attend.
2. An unrepresented claimant who is medically unfit to attend should generally be given the benefit of any doubt, and the proceedings should be adjourned if necessary. The claimant’s strong feelings about the planning permission made his reported stress understandable.
3. The adjournment was not open-ended. The public authority and interested party required certainty about the status of the planning permission, particularly given the procedural history, the previous refusals of permission and the alleged delay.
4. The matter was therefore to return as soon as possible. The court should ask whether the claimant remained fit to attend. If he remained unfit for a considerable period, a judge should decide whether it was necessary to proceed without his attendance. The claimant could submit further written representations if he remained unable to attend.
5. The court directed that a transcript be prepared at public expense and supplied to the parties.

The judgment does not determine an appeal. It records that an earlier judicial review challenge to the outline planning permission had been refused by Wyn Williams J, with an appeal to the Court of Appeal said to be pending. The present renewed application was adjourned.