Rehman, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2013] EWHC 1351 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2013] EWHC 1351 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
29 April 2013
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Administrative law Judicial review procedure
Keywords
out-of-hours judge court hours late application disclosure obligations charter flight counsel’s advice exceptional circumstances
Outcome
application disposed of with no further action; two applications adjourned
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Applications filed during court hours must be dealt with through the judge responsible for them during those hours. Solicitors should await that judge’s response before applying to an out-of-hours judge. Although delay caused by late filing is regrettable, the court may take no further action where the circumstances are exceptional, the parties have attempted to comply with disclosure obligations, and the explanation is candid and satisfactory.

Factual background

The Divisional Court had before it three applications. It could not determine two of them immediately because further evidence and, in one case, counsel’s attendance were required. The court dealt with the remaining application, which had been filed at approximately 4.30 pm on the date of a scheduled charter flight. An application was then made to the out-of-hours judge before the judge dealing with applications during court hours had responded. The central issues were the proper administrative route for such applications and whether the late conduct warranted further action.

Held

  1. Applications during court hours. Applications submitted within court hours must be dealt with through the judge dealing with them during court hours. Solicitors must wait for that judge’s response before applying to the out-of-hours judge.

  2. Late application. The court cannot be expected to respond immediately where an application is filed late. The court nevertheless accepted that those involved had tried to satisfy their disclosure obligations following clear and cogent advice.

  3. Disposition. The delay was deeply regrettable and resulted from organisational difficulties within the solicitors’ firm and counsel’s commitments. The circumstances were treated as a rare exceptional case. The court therefore took no further action in the application before it. The other two matters were adjourned for determination when the required evidence and attendance were available.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.