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 High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Baraka, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2057 (Admin) (12 July 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2057.html
Cite as: [2011] EWHC 2057 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
____________________
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF FARADJI BARAKA | Claimant | |
| v | ||
| THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT | Defendant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 0207 404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Matthew Gullick (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
J U D G M E N T
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- THE DEPUTY JUDGE: This is a renewed application for permission to claim judicial review. The claimant seeks to impugn the defendant's decision, communicated by letter dated 2 July 2010, not to treat further representations made on his behalf on 16 June 2010 as a fresh claim.
- Permission to make this claim was refused by Lindblom J on the papers on 26 October 2010.
- The defendant has apparently absconded since December 2010. His solicitors gave notice yesterday that they would not be representing him in court today, and, despite Treasury Solicitors' efforts to contact him to alert him if his solicitors had not to the notice of the hearing, no appearance has been made on his behalf.
- For the reasons given by Lindblom J, I also consider that the claim is unarguable, having read the papers. Accordingly, it will be dismissed.
- MR GULLICK: My Lord, Lindblom J made an order for costs in the sum of £480. I am not sure whether the renewal notice itself is an objection to payment of costs, but so far as it is, I would invite your Lordship to confirm that costs be paid in the sum of £480. (Pause)
- THE DEPUTY JUDGE: At the moment, you have an order which is not dependent on whether or not the application for permission is renewed. There is no reason why the Treasury Solicitor cannot enforce that order. I do not think I need to make another one. I will also say this claim was totally without merit.