FA (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On a renewed application for permission to appeal where the proposed appeal would be a second appeal, the second-appeal criteria govern. The court may proceed in the appellant’s absence where notice was given, an adjournment request was refused, the case was properly called on and attempts to make contact were unsuccessful. Permission may be refused where the applicant does not engage with the reasons for an earlier refusal and the papers disclose no basis for disagreement.

The appellant sought renewed oral permission to appeal after Sir Stephen Sedley had refused permission on the papers by an order dated 1 October 2014. The proposed appeal would be a second appeal. Despite being notified, the appellant did not attend. His email application for an adjournment had been refused, and an attempt to contact him by mobile phone was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal considered whether it should proceed in his absence and whether the second-appeal criteria were satisfied.

Sales LJ refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. Because the proposed appeal would be a second appeal, the second-appeal criteria applied.
2. It was appropriate to proceed in the appellant’s absence. He had been notified of the hearing date and time, his adjournment request had been refused, the case had been properly called on, and an effort had been made to contact him by mobile phone without success.
3. No written submission or attendance engaged with Sir Stephen Sedley’s reasons for refusing permission. Sales LJ reviewed the papers himself and agreed with those reasons. No possible basis for disagreeing with them had been advanced or appeared from the papers.
4. The renewed application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Sales LJ considered the renewed oral application for permission to appeal and refused it.
• Earlier permission decision: Sir Stephen Sedley refused permission on the papers by order dated 1 October 2014.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Appeal Chamber): the appeal was stated to be from this tribunal; its decision and citation were not stated in the judgment.