Amin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Where a substantive appeal has been listed for some time, an adjournment will not ordinarily be granted for a late request based on the appellant’s absence, particularly where an earlier adjournment has already been allowed and the proposed appeal appears to have little merit. If the adjournment is refused and the appellant does not attend or arrange representation, the court may dismiss the appeal without hearing it on the merits.

The appellant challenged an Inspector’s decision refusing a planning application made to the London Borough of Newham for a change of use. The matter had previously been adjourned on the appellant’s application, and directions had fixed the substantive hearing date. Shortly before the hearing, the appellant sought a further adjournment because he was in Pakistan and could not attend in person.

A Master had refused the renewed application, which the appellant repeated before Mr Justice Foskett. The Secretary of State opposed the application. The central issues were whether a further adjournment should be granted and, if not, what order should follow when the appellant was absent and unrepresented.

1. Adjournment refused. The matter had been pending for a considerable time. The appellant had known since 6 November of the date fixed for the substantive hearing. An earlier adjournment had already been granted, and the renewed request was made only a few days before the hearing because the appellant was in Pakistan. Those circumstances weighed strongly against further delay.
2. The court had read the Inspector’s decision and compared it with the five proposed grounds of appeal. The judge’s provisional assessment was that the grounds disclosed little, if any, merit. The Secretary of State’s submissions reinforced that assessment. This was a relevant additional consideration in deciding whether to adjourn.
3. Once the adjournment was refused, no person was present to present the appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed without the court needing to determine the substantive planning complaints.
4. Costs were summarily assessed at £3,000 in favour of the Secretary of State, reflecting the delay, the various adjournment applications and related correspondence.

The judgment records that an Inspector had refused the planning application. The appellant’s challenge was first considered procedurally, and an earlier adjournment was granted by HHJ Bidder QC. A later application was refused by Master Gidden. Mr Justice Foskett refused the renewed application and dismissed the appeal.