England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		24 February 2006

1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: This has been a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review by Mr Fergus after initial refusal by Ouseley J, who both refused interim relief and observed that the proceedings issued disclosed no cause of action and were, in his judgment, an abuse of process.
2. The circumstances arise from a dispute between Mr Fergus and the London Borough of Hackney, who have been joined to the application. Today there is an appearance before me by Mr Esheyigba, a solicitor on behalf of the London Borough of Hackney. There is no appearance by the Shoreditch County Court, which of course opposes any question of permission being granted. The dispute arises out of the fact that Mr Fergus has been removed from a flat which he used to rent from the London Borough of Hackney. But he has sought to challenge what he sees to be incorrect conclusions by the London Borough of Hackney in a substantial number of ways.
3. The history is set out in Mr Esheyigba's witness statement. The order which is now before me for challenge by way of judicial review is the order of Judge Latham in the Shoreditch County Court on 24 October 2005. Prior to that, there had been a decision by Judge Cotran at the Shoreditch County Court on 11 May, which dismissed the appeal by the claimant against the earlier order of the county court by District Judge Jackson, which had made an order for suspended possession. The order of Judge Cotran, which upheld the decision for suspended possession, was sought to be challenged by Mr Fergus. On 24 May 2005, the claimant made an application by notice for permission to appeal Judge Cotran's order. That application for permission was refused by Dobbs J on 24 May.
4. The next step that the claimant took was to seek to bring further proceedings in the Shoreditch County Court which sought to go behind the decision of Judge Cotran. Those were the fresh proceedings which were struck out by Judge Latham on 24 October when he made the following order:

"Claim struck out.

Issue estopped based on the order made by HHJ Cotran on 11 May.

No fresh applications may be made by the claimant, Mr Fergus, against the defendant in respect of issues heard and decided by HHJ Cotran on 11 May, save, for the avoidance of doubt, applications in relation to Mr Fergus pending application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal from the order may by HHJ Cotran on 11 May."

5. As for that subsequent "saving", it may have been a failure in understanding by Judge Latham as to the fact that the appeal against Judge Cotran was not to the Court of Appeal but to the High Court, as indeed was appropriate, and indeed absence of knowledge that applications for permission had been dismissed by Dobbs J, as I have described. If it was some reference to the possibility of some further application to the Court of Appeal, that is of course not available in any event to Mr Fergus, because there is no jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal against a refusal of permission to appeal by the High Court.
6. It does not appear as though Mr Fergus made any application to Judge Latham on 24 October for permission to appeal, nor does it appear that he has subsequently sought permission to appeal from the Queen's Bench Division. In those circumstances, his only route to challenge Judge Latham's order, namely by way of appeal, has not been followed and would no doubt now be out of time. Rather than take that route, he appears to have been spraying other applications around.
7. He issued a claim form in the Chancery Division on 24 May 2005, which essentially sought collaterally to challenge Judge Cotran's judgment, which was, after the setting aside of an initial judgment entered in default inappropriately, transferred from the Chancery Division to the county court, and it was those proceedings which were dismissed by Judge Latham.
8. He has issued these proceedings by way of attempted judicial review of Judge Latham's decision of 24 October. He has subsequently been once again to the Queen's Bench Division, when David Steel J refused him permission to appeal the order of Judge Cotran of 11 May. In the meanwhile an eviction warrant was granted by the county court on the basis of Judge Cotran's judgment and Mr Fergus sought to challenge that in the Shoreditch County Court, when the matter came before Judge Latham again on 7 December by way of an application for re-entry. That application was dismissed by Judge Latham on 2 December, although he gave permission to appeal.
9. Mr Fergus sought mandatory relief from the High Court, which was refused by Wilkie J on 3 January, to seek to restore him to the premises, and Wilkie J having refused that relief, left him to his appeal against Judge Latham's decision for which, as I have indicated, Judge Latham had given permission. That appeal was supposed to come on on 28 January in the Queen's Bench Division, but it has not done so.
10. I turn then against that recital of the history to deal very shortly with today's application. There is no jurisdiction in the Administrative Court to review or to undermine the order of Judge Latham of 24 October. The only route by which that could have been challenged was the appeal route, which has not been taken on this occasion by Mr Fergus, although he is perfectly knowledgeable of the appeal route, as appears from the history which I have described. There is no jurisdiction for this court to issue any order by way of judicial review of the final decision of a county court judge.
11. Ouseley J was accordingly absolutely correct to conclude that there was no cause of action shown in these proceedings and that it was an abuse of the process, and I dismiss the application for permission.
12. What I have taken the opportunity to do, however, is to deal with two matters which are now before the courts. The first is that it is clearly essential for the appeal against Judge Latham's order of 2 December speedily to be heard in the Queen's Bench Division, and that will be heard at a date with an estimated time of one hour next week, and the parties, Mr Fergus and Mr Esheyigba, will immediately hereafter be going around by arrangement to the listing office to fix up that date.
13. Mr Esheyigba this morning served upon Mr Fergus and lodged with the court an application notice, which was stamped on 23 February, for a Civil Restraint Order against Mr Fergus in the light of the plethora of applications to which I have referred. He justified seeking to have that matter heard today, the necessary three days' notice dispensed with, upon the basis that the London Borough of Hackney only had notice two days ago of the renewal of the application refused by Ouseley J. It appears to me that for two reasons the right course is to adjourn this to come on at the same time as the Queen's Bench appeal. First, because it is unfair to Mr Fergus for him to have to face this application today without notice, and secondly because in any event at the moment he has permission to pursue his appeal against Judge Latham's order of 2 December, and the sooner, as I have indicated, that is dealt with the better. It is in the light of the outcome of that case that it can be seen whether it is or is not appropriate for a Civil Restraint Order to be issued.
14. I therefore direct that the application for a Civil Restraint Order be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division and be heard at the date to be fixed next week at the same time as the Queen's Bench appeal.
15. What about costs?
16. MR ESHEYIGBA: I have not asked for costs today at all.
17. MR JUSTICE BURTON: No order for costs. Thank you very much.