Arunthavaraja v Administrative Court Office
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Richards LJ,Maddison J |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 18921 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/7600/2008 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 09 July 2009 |
Neutral Citation: [2009] EWHC 18921 (Admin)
Administrative Court
Judges: Richards LJ, Maddison J
CO/7600/2008
Appearances: Mr M Collis (instructed by Rustem Guardian) for the Appellant; Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Respondent; Miss Amelia Nice (instructed by the CPS) for the interested Party.
Issue: Whether an application for judicial review — challenging a refusal to issue a notice of appeal, based on the fact that the notice of appeal was filed outside the time limit of seven days – should be allowed.
Facts: A's extradition was sought by a judicial authority of Cyprus. A District Judge had ordered his extradition on Monday 28 July 2008. On Monday 4 August 2008, A's solicitors attempted to file a notice of appeal at the Administrative Court Office, which was refused on the basis that it was out of time. Pursuant to s26(1) and (4), notice of appeal had to be given before the end of the permitted period, which was seven days starting with the day on which the order was made. A now challenged the refusal to issue the notice of appeal.
Richards LJ:
1 The claimant was arrested in this country pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Paphos District Court in Cyprus. He was brought before City of Westminster Magistrates' Court where District Judge Tubbs made an order pursuant to s21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 for his extradition. The order was made on Monday 28 July 2008. By s26(1) and (4) of the 2003 Act, there is a right of appeal to the High Court against such an order, but notice of appeal must be given in accordance with rules of court before the end of the permitted period, which is seven days starting with the day on which the order was made. On Monday 4 August 2008, the claimant's solicitors attempted to file a notice of appeal at the Administrative Court Office in the Royal Courts of Justice. The Office refused to issue the notice, on the basis that it was out of time and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. By this application the claimant challenges that refusal. The matter is listed as an application for permission, with the substantive judicial review application to follow immediately if permission is granted. The extradition order itself has been stayed pending the determination of these proceedings.
2 On behalf of the Administrative Court Office, Mr Chamberlain has taken the point, which in my view is well-founded, that judicial review is a wholly inappropriate means of challenging a decision of this kind. In his written submissions he starts by observing that it is the long-established practice of the Office to refuse to issue a notice of appeal or other originating application filed outside a non-extendable statutory time limit. The practice is said to serve the important objective of ensuring that the court lists do not become clogged up with appeals and applications which the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain. What we are told about the practice accords with my own understanding of the position, and I regard the practice itself as perfectly sound. If a notice or application is considered to have been filed out of time, and in consequence the court is considered to lack jurisdiction to entertain it, the point is best taken at the outset. The question is how to resolve a dispute should one arise at that early stage.
3 The staff of the Administrative Court Office are court officers as defined in CPR rule 2.3(1). Where a step is to be taken by a court officer, he has the power under rule 3.2 to consult a judge before taking that step, and the step may be taken by a judge instead of the court officer. If therefore a member of staff indicates that he or she is minded not to issue a notice of appeal, it is open to the party concerned to request that the matter be referred to a judge under that rule. If the matter is so referred, a judge of the court can take the relevant decision.
4 Moreover, decisions made by officers of the High Court are subject to the supervision of the judges of that court in the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes. Thus, in R v Taxing Officerex p Bee-Line Roadways International Limited, The Times, 11 February 1982, Woolf J (as he then was) refused to entertain an application for judicial review of a decision of a Supreme Court Taxing Master, but held there to be ‘an inherent power in the court to control its own proceedings conducted by officials of the court, such as taxing masters, as delegates of the judges’. In relation to the issue of notice of appeal, I doubt whether the staff of the office can be said to be acting as delegates of judges in the sense envisaged by Woolf J in that passage, but I see no reason why the inherent jurisdiction of the court should not extend to control of such activities.
5 If, therefore, a member of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary Paice and Another v MJ Harding (trading as MJ Harding Contractors)
...but which are contained within supplementary practice directions." 25 And in a further decision in the same year, Arunthavaraga v Administrative Court Office [2009] EWHC 18921 (Admin), Richards LJ said, at [25]: "I have said that no decision on the point is necessary. I simply observe that......
-
Lukaszewski and Others v The District Court in Torun, Poland and Others (No 3)
...of an Appellant's Notice which has not been issued (or stamped as received) by the Administrative Court Office." 17 In Arunthavaraja v Administrative Court Office [2009] EWHC 18921 (Admin) (Richards LJ and Maddison J) the notice was served out of time but Richards LJ observed at paragraph ......
-
Lukaszewski and Others v The District Court in Torun, Poland and Others (No 2)
...Sciezka v Court in Sad Okregowy, Poland [2009] EWHC 2259 (Admin), Dunne v High Court Dublin [2009] EWHC 2003 (Admin), Arunthavaraga v Administrative Court Office [2009] EWHC 18921 (Admin) and R (Kane) v Trial Court No 5 Marbella, Spain [2011] EWHC 824 (Admin); [2012] 1 WLR 375. In Kami......
-
Regional Court in Konin, Poland v Walerianczyk
...matters. So far as Richards LJ and Maddison J. in Arunthavaraja v Administrative Court Office Paphos District Court Cyprus [2009] EWHC 18921 (Admin) suggested that the position might be otherwise at [24]-[25], I respectfully disagree. However, if an Appellant's Notice has been filed and al......