England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
(MR JUSTICE HOOPER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 8 February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an application by Mr John Carney for permission to appeal against the refusal of Hooper J on 29 August 2001 to grant him permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of His Honour Judge Heath, sitting in the Grimsby County Court on 3 October 2,000. The judge refused to extend the time limit for an application that the judge should state a case. The application was dismissed on the merits.
2. The decision which Mr Carney seeks to challenge arose out of a decision made by the judge on 16 May 2000 in the Grimsby County Court on an application for an order against the North Lincolnshire Council pursuant to section 56(2) of the Highways Act 1980. The dispute is in relation to a stretch of under half a mile of what is known as Bonneyhale Road. It runs eastwards from what is now known as the Bonneyhale Mushroom Farm to North Pilfrey Farm on the north side of a railway line. Mr Carney submits that the road is a highway maintainable by the council.
3. The judge heard the case over several days. He made a site visit. He substantially accepted the arguments put forward by the council that the stretch of road was not maintainable by them. The judge found that Bonneyhale Road came into existence upon enclosure as a private road and not as a public road. At the invitation of the parties, he examined maps covering the 19th century. He found that there was no indication of any road in the position alleged. The judge accepted oral evidence from witnesses called by the council that in the 1940s the road in dispute was a rough farm track. He held that before 1948 it was not a public highway, and that a 1949 conveyance was inconsistent with the existence of a public highway. The judge's general conclusion was that the road was not the ancient highway for which Mr Carney contended, but was within agricultural land and a farm access road.
4. Mr Carney submits that the judge's decision is wrong and that he ought to have been granted an extension of time. I have put to him for his further comment the point that, under our system of law, it is for the trial judge, in this case the judge in the county court, to consider and assess the evidence, and to make findings of fact and reach conclusions. Mr Carney submits that the judge failed to have regard to Acts of Parliament, such as the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Act 1889 and the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1993. The 1889 Act was not before the judge.
5. Mr Carney makes the point that he believes the county council were aware of it. He complains about the lack of proper archives within the county. As a result of a great deal of work that Mr Carney has put into this subject, he has submitted bundles of documents to the court and prepared what are obviously very interesting and attractive maps. He seeks the extension of time on the basis that justice requires that the matter should be reconsidered by the judge on the basis of the further information now available. He says it took him a long time to obtain copies of the relevant documents and an extension of time ought to have been given.
6. It is clear that Mr Carney put a considerable amount of work into this case both before and after it was presented to the judge. He feels very strongly that the wrong decision has been reached and he wants the matter to be reconsidered in the county court.
7. The application came before Silber J on paper. He refused permission to appeal stating:

"You have no arguable claim for judicial review, as the judge was entitled to reach the decision he did on the 26 May 2000 and therefore refuse to state a case for the reasons set out in his judgment and in his note explaining his refusal to state a case. In any event, the judge was also entitled to refuse to state a case because of your delay. So there are no arguable public law grounds for impugning either decision."

8. Mr Carney renewed his application orally before Hooper J who also refused the application. Hooper J referred to the conclusion of Silber J and it was clear from the argument before Hooper J that it took a long time for the applicant to obtain possession of the plans. Hooper J stated that in his judgment:

"That .... is no ground for delaying so long to ask for a stated case."

9. The judge expressed his agreement with Silber J, stating that:

"... the judge was entitled to refuse to state a case because of the delay and his decision to refuse any extension is not one that could arguably be described as perverse."

10. Mr Carney had his opportunity to present the case to the judge and, following a long hearing, his claim failed. The main interest in the courts is to do justice. That involves a proper consideration of evidence and reaching proper conclusions on the evidence. As I have indicated to the applicant, there is a public interest in finality in cases such as this; the court's time being important for other litigants, as well as particular litigants who feel aggrieved about decisions, and because those concerned should know where they stand. That is why there are time limits which must generally be observed.
11. I agree with both Silber J and Hooper J that His Honour Judge Heath was entitled to decline to state a case because he was not willing in the circumstances to grant the substantial extension of time which was requested. I only add that, impressed as I am by Mr Carney's knowledge of the subject and the work he has done, and accepting as I do, the genuineness of his feelings on this subject, nothing has been drawn to my attention which leads me to believe that, upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, Judge Heath was wrong. He also refused to state a case having regard to the merits of the matter. While I refuse the application on the grounds that it was brought too late and the judge was entitled not to grant an extension of time, I have heard nothing to indicate that any injustice has been done in this case.
12. I have considered the submissions of Mr Carney, who concludes his submissions by stating that the local authority should not be allowed to "get away" with their conduct, including suggestions that documents were withheld from the judge. For the reasons I have given, I agree with the judges below.
13. The application is refused.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.