British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> MacMullen v Weymouth & Portland Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1503 (13 September 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1503.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1503
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE CRANE)
Strand London, WC2 Friday, 13 September 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| PAUL NEIL MACMULLEN | Applicant | |
| -v- | ||
| WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL | Defendant |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE KAY: This is an appeal against a decision of Crane J whereby he refused the applicant's application for judicial review. The applicant advanced the matter before me today. It is right to say that it had earlier been considered on the papers by Sullivan J, who viewed the application as being misconceived. Crane J then heard the application and considered it.
- The matter relates to various claims for benefit, including Housing Benefit, made by the applicant. There is no question and it clearly is right that since 1994 he has considered that he has been mistreated by the local authority in refusing perfectly proper claims that he was making for benefit.
- The root cause of the problem was that he and his wife, from whom he was separated, were living under the same roof. The local authority took the view that they were effectively living together and that benefits should be refused. There was then a long history of complaint about the matter and in March 2000 the claimant brought a claim against the local authority in the High Court for damages arising from decisions of the authority. The matter was struck out by the Master and the Master indicated that if he wished to solve his problems, he should make a further claim for benefit and if and when that was refused then to apply for judicial review. He did exactly that. He applied to the authority yet again for benefits. The local authority decided to refer the matter to a review board. The review board decided by a majority of two to one to uphold the application for benefit. Accordingly, since that date benefit has been paid.
- The next question was whether he was entitled to have the arrears of benefit, which he has claimed have amassed since 1994. In due course a decision was made that he could have the maximum backdating of the allowance of benefit under the Regulations which was a period for 52 weeks. So from a year before the final decision he has in fact got his benefit, but that leaves many years prior to that date for which the benefits have not been paid.
- The applicant seeks to challenge a decision of the local authority not to pay him any damages in respect of their refusal to allow him benefit for that previous period. Now that decision is simply a decision in relation to a claim made against the Council by him in which he alleged all sorts of impropriety by the local authority and, in effect, said that they had conspired against him in order to prevent him receiving his lawful entitlement to benefits. That decision was not a decision made as a matter of public law forum, but was a decision whereby the local authority exercised its private law rights when a claim was brought against it. That decision is therefore not challengeable by way of judicial review.
- The only other way in which one could now mount some sort of application for judicial review would be if one could go back to the original decisions years after the event and say that they were wrong. As Crane J sought to explain to the applicant, one simply cannot go back years before and challenge decisions made at earlier dates by way of judicial review. There is a short timelimit which will be extended in certain circumstances, but would never be extended for the sort of period that is involved in this case.
- It is not for me in any way to assess whether the applicant has some other remedy. He says that he has been let down badly by solicitors, who, in their turn, have conspired with the local authority. I have no means of knowing whether that is right or wrong. It cannot affect this application, but clearly within the complaints that he makes in that regard, there may possibly be some sort of remedy that is available to him just as there may be some other remedy against the local authority. But it is not for the court to seek to give advice. It is never in a position to do so because it does not have all the facts properly before it in a way that would enable that to be done; that is for the applicant. He says he cannot get solicitors properly to advise him, but there are steps he can take by contacting the Law Society that would enable him, if need be, to get independent advice from outside the area so that he could be assured that there was no conspiracy between such solicitors and the local authority.
- In the circumstances though, I have to confine myself to this application. As both Sullivan J and Crane J made clear, it is absolutely certain that even if permission was given to bring an application for judicial review it would fail, and in those circumstances it follows that those earlier decisions were right and consequently no appeal against them can succeed. For those reasons, this application is refused. Thank you very much for putting the matter clearly and courteously.
(The application was refused. No order for costs)
Friday 13 September 2002.