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

Appellants, including litigants in person, must comply with applicable procedural rules and directions. A litigant in person who is unfamiliar with procedure must make enquiries about compliance. Where appeal-bundle defects remain unresolved after repeated extensions, and there is no documentary evidence that an outstanding transcript has been ordered and paid for, the court may maintain a dismissal order. Procedural unfamiliarity and lack of representation will not ordinarily justify setting aside the order after prolonged delay.

An unrepresented appellant appealed from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The Civil Appeals Office identified missing documents required for the appeal bundle and granted successive extensions, including time to obtain the transcript of judgment. The defects remained unresolved after the matter was placed in the dismissal list, and the application was dismissed with costs on 21 August 2015. At the requested oral hearing, the appellant relied on her lack of familiarity with the procedure and difficulties obtaining assistance. The central issue was whether those reasons justified setting aside the dismissal order.

1. Application dismissed. The court refused to set aside the dismissal order made on 21 August 2015. The dismissal order, including costs, stood.
2. Applicants must comply with the applicable Rules and Practice Directions. That obligation applies equally to litigants in person. A litigant in person who is unfamiliar with the procedure must make enquiries about how to comply. Lack of representation does not, by itself, provide sufficient justification for non-compliance.
3. The appellant’s bundle remained defective under the requirements associated with Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules and PD 52C paragraph 27. Several extensions had been granted, but the outstanding documents, including the transcript of judgment, were not filed within the extended deadlines.
4. The court had required documentary evidence that the transcript had been ordered and paid for before removing the matter from the dismissal list. No such evidence was provided. Although the appellant had apparently made a transcript request, she had not obtained confirmation that it had been received or processed and had not paid for the transcript.
5. Nearly nine months had elapsed since the appellant’s notice was filed. In those circumstances, the explanation that the appellant did not understand the procedures and had been unable to obtain assistance was insufficient. The dismissal order therefore remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application to set aside the dismissal order was dismissed, and the order with costs stood: [2015] EWCA Civ 1080.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Judgment appealed from; its citation and outcome are not stated in the judgment.