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 >> Saxena v UK Passport Service & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1782 (10 October 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1782.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1782
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST
(MR JUSTICE RICHARDS)
Strand London, WC2 Thursday, 10th October 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| DR RAM PRATAP SAXENA | Claimant | |
| -v- | ||
| UK PASSPORT SERVICE, DRIVER AND VEHICLE LICENSING CENTRE AND THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY | Respondent |
____________________
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 respondent did not appear and was not represented
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE LAWS: On 2nd May 2002 Mr Justice Richards in the Administrative Court dismissed three applications for permission to seek Judicial Review which had been lodged by this applicant. One was against the NHS Pensions Agency. There the complaint was as to the refusal of the Agency to grant the applicant an ill-health pension or a related lump sum.
- The next was against the Home Office. This seems to have been based on the conduct, or alleged conduct, of the applicant's ex-wife who, it is said, fraudulently obtained a visa by stating that her marriage to the applicant was "running smoothly". She is also said to have forged the applicant's signature on certain papers.
- The last of the three applications was against the DVLC for refusing the applicant's application for a driving licence following the recommendation of a medical adviser.
- I have, of course, read the judgments of Mr Justice Richards in each of the three cases and the papers submitted in support of these applications. I do not find it necessary to say any more than that all three applications are conspicuously misconceived, and Mr Justice Richards was entirely right to refuse Judicial Review permission in each case for the reasons he gave. For my part, I refuse these applications.