BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [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 >> Wilfred v HM Immigration Service [2002] EWCA Civ 1360 (10 September 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1360.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1360

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1360
C1/2002/0354

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Lord Justice Simon Brown)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Tuesday, 10th September 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE KAY
____________________

BODE WILFRED
Claimant/Applicant
-v-
HM IMMIGRATION SERVICE
Defendant/Respondent

____________________

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 0170 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

The Applicant did not appear and was unrepresented.
The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented.

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Tuesday, 10th September 2002

  1. LORD JUSTICE KAY: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of Simon Brown LJ sitting in the Administrative Court when he refused the application by the applicant for judicial review.
  2. The matter has already been considered on the paper by Laws LJ who concluded:
  3. "In my judgment Simon Brown LJ was obviously right. I also consider that the applicant should have pursued his statutory remedy rather than sought judicial review."
  4. There is no attendance before me today. The applicant was originally represented by solicitors. Earlier this week they communicated with the court to say that they had received advice from counsel that the application was not capable of being argued, and they sought to be taken off the record as a result. By a letter bearing yesterday's date they indicated that they had made the applicant aware of today's hearing date and also made arrangements for him to have the necessary papers. He has not attended himself. Not only that, he has not communicated with the court in any way to suggest that he is in any sort of difficulties in keeping the appointment.
  5. Having had an opportunity to read the papers, this is, as Laws LJ made clear, an application which is wholly without merit. The decision of Simon Brown LJ is clearly right. That was a view reached by Laws LJ, reached by the applicant's own counsel and now reached equally by me. In those circumstances it can do nothing other than to delay the proper processes to adjourn this matter further. I refuse to do so.
  6. For exactly the same reasons as given question by Laws LJ, I refuse this application.
  7. Order: Application refused.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1360.html