Nixon & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A renewed application for permission to appeal cannot proceed where the court cannot establish contact with counsel and therefore cannot hear the applicant’s case. After a second failure of telephone or video arrangements, the court may adjourn and direct that any further oral hearing take place in person, subject to a satisfactory written explanation and undertaking showing that a remote arrangement will work. Such an order concerns the conduct of the hearing only and does not determine the merits of the proposed appeal.

Mr Paul Nixon and his son, Jaquan Nixon, sought renewed permission to appeal in proceedings involving the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The matter arose from an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal. A previous hearing had been adjourned after a video link with counsel could not be achieved. At the renewed hearing, attempts to arrange a telephone hearing again failed because counsel was unavailable and counsel’s chambers could not be contacted. The central issue was whether the hearing could proceed in those circumstances.

Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal was adjourned.

1. The hearing had already been adjourned from 3 May because a video link with the applicants’ counsel could not be achieved. On 15 June, the court again attempted to arrange a telephone hearing, but counsel was said to be dealing with another matter and counsel’s chambers could not be contacted.
2. The court could not establish the hearing or know what would be said on behalf of the applicants. The hearing therefore could not take place, and the application was adjourned for a second time.
3. The matter was not reserved to Lord Justice Beatson. If there were a further renewed oral hearing, it was directed to be an ordinary hearing in person. A remote hearing would be considered only if the applicants satisfactorily explained in writing what had happened and gave an undertaking explaining why a telephone or video arrangement would work.

No issue on the merits of the proposed appeal or the underlying proceedings was determined. Order: Application adjourned.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — heard a renewed application for permission to appeal and adjourned the application on 15 June 2017.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal — identified as the court below; no citation or substantive outcome is stated in the judgment.