[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 >> Amin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 369 (Admin) (30 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/369.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 369 (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
		30 January 2013

1. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: This matter comes before me today listed as a substantive appeal by the appellant against a decision of the Secretary of State through his duly appointed Inspector concerning the refusal of a planning application that the appellant made to the local planning authority, the London Borough of Newham, seeking a change of use in relation to the property in question.
2. I propose to say little, if anything, about the precise background to the application other than, in a moment, about the possible merits of this appeal, but the short background is this: the decision of the Inspector was first made the subject of challenge by an application notice some considerable time ago. The case was originally to be listed in the autumn of last year but the appellant made an application, which was considered by HHJ Bidder QC, for an adjournment because he was not ready to proceed for various reasons which were set out in the material that was placed before the judge. The bottom line is that HHJ Bidder acceded to that application and gave further directions. Those further directions involved the listing of the matter before the court today and that decision was communicated to the appellant on 6 November last year. So there has been a good deal of time during which it has been plain that today was the date for the substantive appeal to be heard.
3. At a very late stage, only a few days ago, the appellant made a further application for an adjournment of the hearing based on the fact that he is currently in Pakistan and faced certain difficulties in being able to be here to present the appeal in person, as I understand was his intention. That was considered by Master Gidden a day or so ago and was refused. The appellant has renewed his application for an adjournment in the form of a letter, which was presented to me this morning, indicating that he is currently living in Pakistan and would not be able to get back in time to enable him to present the appeal.
4. The application for an adjournment was resisted today on behalf of the Secretary of State, as indeed it was when the matter was considered by HHJ Bidder back in October. This matter is now of some longstanding. I have in preparation for today's hearing read the Inspector's decision and endeavoured in a very broad way to compare it with the complaints that were made about it by the appellant. I am bound to say my initial reaction was that there was little, if anything, in any of the points that the appellant was proposing to make. Mr Whale has taken me through what, in effect, would be his response on behalf of the Secretary of State to the five points that the appellant was seeking to make in the notice of appeal. Again, I will not myself go into those but he has indicated with some force that there is little, if any, strength or merit in any of the points that are taken, and that does, as I say, confirm the immediate view that I formed having read the papers.
5. Against that background and against the background of the delay and the fact that this matter was listed for a substantive hearing today and has been known about for some time, it does seem to me that it would be wrong for me to adjourn this matter any further, bearing in mind also, as I have indicated, the very slender merit that there appears to be, if any, in the proposed appeal. So I refuse the application for the adjournment. There is no-one here now to present the appeal, and on that basis I dismiss the appeal.
6. MR WHALE: My Lord, I am grateful. There is the usual consequential application for costs.
7. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: Yes, I have seen that.
8. MR WHALE: I just ask that costs be summarily assessed in the sum of £3,852 in favour of the Secretary of State. Of course, I will try to help if you have any queries.
9. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: Let me just look through it. It seems quite a substantial sum for a relatively short set of arguments and submissions.
10. MR WHALE: Well, my Lord, I can check behind me if needs be but I rather suspect it is a function of the way in which the matter has dragged on and the various applications, and that has obviously entailed correspondence between the parties both in terms of considering the applications to adjourn, meeting them and matters of that kind.
11. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: I understand. You cannot complain about £3,000, can you?
12. MR WHALE: I cannot complain about £3,500, my Lord.
13. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: You cannot complain about £3,000, Mr Whale.
14. MR WHALE: I hear what you say, my Lord. I am very happy to explain to the gentleman outside or to answer any queries if he may have them.
15. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: That is good of you, thank you very much. I am grateful, Mr Whale. £3,000.
16. MR WHALE: Thank you, my Lord.
17. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: Thank you.