England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE SCOTT-BAKER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 11th May 2001

Friday, 11th May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY: On 14th February this year Sedley LJ refused the applicant Mrs Malak Roshdy's application for permission to appeal Scott-Baker J's decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review of the Westminister City Council's refusal to withdraw an Enforcement Notice against the applicant. The judge had dismissed the application because it was hopelessly out of time. Sedley LJ refused permission because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success. He ended his judgment by saying:

"I should make it clear in parting with this case that this is the end of this particular road for Mrs Roshdy. There is no further application which she can properly make in this matter to the court. If there is more to be said, and a contradiction to be resolved, it is with the council and the planning system that this lies. "

2. So one may ask why this case is again before this court. The reason is as follows. Mrs Roshdy did not appear before Sedley LJ. In the fortnight before that hearing she applied three times for an adjournment, each of which Sedley LJ refused. Her first two applications were on the basis that she hoped to be able to obtain legal aid so that she would be represented by solicitors and counsel. Her third was on the basis that, due to circumstances beyond her control, she would not be able to attend.
3. Despite this history CPR 23.11(2) enabled the applicant to apply for her application to be relisted. That is why the matter is before me today. Again, however, the applicant has not attended. On 4th May she applied for today's hearing to be adjourned, because she had what she describes as "a pre-testing appointment with a hospital consultant", and, for good measure, because she was taking postgraduate exams in July. I refused this application that day. Yesterday I received a further application which said:

"As I am unable to attend the hearing in person for the reasons given previously and after careful consideration and advice I think that the best way is to withdraw the matter from the listing in order for me to appoint a solicitor and counsel to represent me at a future hearing."

4. On seeing that letter I directed that the case should remain in the list for today. This morning I have had put before me a further letter from Mrs Roshdy which says:

"Would you relay to Tuckey LJ that I will not be able to attend tomorrow 11th May 2001 for the hearing as per my letter of 8th May 2001. I have tried my utmost to see if I could change my appointment with my hospital consultant but it was impossible."

5. I agree with Sedley LJ that there is no merit whatsoever in this proposed appeal. There are no reasons for relisting it so that it can be reheard by another Lord Justice; so I refuse the application under CPR 23.11.
6. As Mrs Roshdy has not attended today she may again apply under CPR 23.11. That, in the circumstances which I have related, would be an abuse of process. I do not think this court's time should be taken up with similar applications to relist this case and I will direct that no further applications to relist should be accepted by the Court of Appeal office.
(Application dismissed; no order for costs).