[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 >> Lilley, R (on the application of) v Central London County Court [2009] EWHC 1400 (Admin) (30 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1400.html Cite as: [2009] EWHC 1400 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		30th January 2009

1. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: This is a renewed application by the claimant, a litigant in person, Mr Victor George Lilley, for permission to apply for judicial review. I say it is a "renewed application" because when the matter came before Foskett J as a paper application on 27th October 2008 Foskett J refused permission and in doing so made a number of observations about Mr Lilley's claims. Suffice it to say that Foskett J's view, having read the papers, was that the claims being advanced were wholly without merit and sufficiently out of time for the court to dismiss them without consideration of the merits. It is right to record that Mr Lilley, in the course of pursuing these judicial review proceedings, has filed a substantial number of documents, several lever arch files worth in fact and indeed this morning has submitted a further folder containing detailed rebuttal material.
2. It might be helpful if I were to set out the background leading to Mr Lilley making this application. As long ago as 3rd September 2004 Mr Lilley's vehicle was captured -- I think is probably the right word -- driving in the congestion zone during the chargeable hours without Mr Lilley having paid the appropriate congestion charge. As a result Transport for London, the eighth defendants in these proceedings issued a penalty charge notice requiring payment of £100 penalty charge reducible by 50 per cent in the usual way if paid within 14 days. Mr Lilley paid the discounted penalty charge of £50 and then made written representations against the issue of the penalty charge notice.
3. Those representations were rejected by the eighth defendant on 9th December 2004. Mr Lilley subsequently made a statutory appeal against the penalty charge notice to an adjudicator. That appeal was dismissed in November 2005. A review of the adjudicator's decision was sought and thereafter Mr Lilley commenced proceedings in the Uxbridge County Court (who are the fifth defendants in these proceedings) but the claim was struck out on the basis -- the correct basis I add -- that the County Court had no jurisdiction to deal with what was in effect an appeal against an adjudicator in circumstances where there was a comprehensive scheme for appeals in place. Permission to appeal was sought but refused before the District Judge and then again before the Circuit Judge. His Honour Judge Collins, sitting in the Central London County Court refused the application on paper in April 2007 and Central London Court is the first defendant in these review proceedings.
4. Mr Lilley requested the decision of His Honour Judge Collins be reconsidered at an oral hearing, as was his right. That application, after a hearing was refused with the learned judge recording that there were no reasonable prospects of success. In July 2007 Mr Lilley then applied to the Court of Appeal to appeal the District Judge's decision and not surprisingly, in view of the provisions of the Access of Justice Act, Mr Lilley was told the court lacked jurisdiction. I suspect that is how the Civil Law and Justice Division (the second defendant), the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (the third defendant) and the Master of the Rolls (the fourth defendant) and possibly the six defendant (Parliament Under-Secretary and Ministry of Justice) came to be parties to this application.
5. Following Mr Lilley's unsuccessful attempt to engage the Court of Appeal in his dispute with Transport for London, he made a further application to the Central London County Court for permission to appeal and that application, which was out of time, was refused as wholly without merit. That was in January 2007. In 2008 Mr Lilley served a letter before claim, I think in March and these proceedings were commenced in August 2008. In these proceedings Mr Lilley has embarked on a wide-ranging challenge to the congestion charge, the penalty charge notice issued against him and has relied upon a number of statutes from Magna Carta to the Human Rights Act to suggest that the scheme is ultra vires.
6. With that background I turn back to the decision of Foskett J on paper. In particular, to the observation which he made that this claim was sufficiently out of time to be capable of being dismissed without consideration of the merits. I have been addressed on that issue this morning by Mr Lilley and nothing that he has submitted persuades me that notwithstanding the provisions of CPR 54.5 that the claim for judicial review should be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event not less than 3 months after the ground to make a claim arose that I should extend the time. There is provision to extend time, if there are good reasons, but frankly, the reasons which have been put forward both on paper and in oral argument this morning fell far short of being good reasons. I agree entirely with Foskett J that the delay in the commencement of these proceedings is such as to justify, without more, the dismissal of these claims.
7. In any event, on the merits, to my mind, all the claims being pursued against the various defendants in these proceedings are wholly misconceived and, as Foskett J observed at the paper application stage, are wholly without merit.
8. The County Court proceedings which Mr Lilley commenced against Transport for London were misconceived. The Road User Charging Enforcement Adjudication London Regulations 2001 provided an appeal review procedure involving independent adjudicators a route, of which incidentally Mr Lilley took advantage. The County Court had no jurisdiction to deal with appeals or applications in view of the adjudicator's decision. The strike out therefore ordered be the District Judge was entirely correct.
9. Equally Mr Lilley's arguments as to the charges imposed by the congestion charge being ultra vires by reference to the Human Right's Act, and/or Magna Carta, the terms are wholly misconceived having regard to the classic formulation of ultra vires doctrine, the scheme having been enacted within the four corners of the parent legislation.
10. Frankly, I think there is little point in me saying more. For these reasons, in addition to the timing point, all these applications against all eight defendants are wholly misconceived, are wholly without merit and I dismiss them in their entirety. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review is therefore refused.
11. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Miss Yates, I see you have an outstanding claim for costs.
12. MISS YATES: Indeed my Lord. Actually we shall be seeking those.
13. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Do you seek to go beyond what Foskett J was prepared to order on 14th October?
14. MISS YATES: No my Lord, it was decided that we would ask for Mount Cook, the normal costs.
15. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Mr Lilley, is there anything you want to say about costs?
16. THE CLAIMANT: I don't know what I could say about costs.
17. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: In that case I order that Mr Lilley should pay Transport for London costs, summarily assessed at £1455, payable in 14 days.
18. Was there an application by the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service? I do not think there was. Thank you very much. Your skeleton argument was very helpful, thank you.