John Noel Croke v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Hickinbottom |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 423 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2016/3929 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 06 June 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 423
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (PLANNING COURT)
HER HONOUR JUDGE ALICE ROBINSON
SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Hickinbottom
Case No: C1/2016/3929
The Applicant appeared in person
Alistair Mills (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the First Respondent
The Second Respondent neither appeared nor was represented
Hearing date: 6 June 2017
On 10 February 2016, an Inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State dismissed an appeal by the Applicant John Noel Croke against the decision of the Second Defendant local planning authority not to determine an application for planning permission for alterations and extension to existing buildings at the Grange Barns, Church Road, Ickford, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.
The Inspector's decision fell within the scope of section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, which provides that a person aggrieved by a decision of Secretary of the State may question the validity of the decision by making an application to the High Court. Section 288(4A) provides that an application requires the leave of the High Court. Sub-section (4B) provides that an application for leave for these purposes "must be made before the end of the period of 6 weeks beginning with the day after … the date on which the action is taken [i.e. in this case, the date of the Inspector's decision]".
Any such application is made under CPR Part 8. Paragraph 4.1(1) of CPR PD 8 deals with issuing a Part 8 claim, by importing the relevant provisions of CPR Part 7 including CPR PD7A. Paragraph 5 of CPR PD 7A deals with starting proceedings; and para 5.1 of that practice direction states:
"5.1. Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant… but where the claim form as issued was received in the court office on a date earlier than the date on which it was issued by the court, the claim is 'brought' for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and any other relevant statute on that earlier date."
It is uncontroversial that, for the purposes of Section 288(4A) of the 1990 Act, time starts to run on the day after the date of the decision letter, and it expires at midnight on the forty-second day including weekends or bank holidays. The time limit is absolute and jurisdictional, in the sense that, subject to one caveat (see paragraphs 16–17 below), it cannot be extended. It is equally uncontroversial that, in this case, the six-week time limit for bringing a challenge under section 288 ended on Wednesday 23 March 2016.
The Applicant, who is acting in person, wished to challenge the Inspector's decision. He proposed to do so by issuing a section 288 claim in the Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, in person, on 23 March 2016. However, that day, he missed his train. Therefore, he emailed the relevant documents to a friend, Mr Miller, who was apparently located only a few minutes from the court; and he asked him to file the claim. It is the Applicant's case, accepted by the judge below for the purposes of the application before her and by Mr Mills for the Secretary of State today, that Mr Miller arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice at 4.25pm; but, although the advertised closing time for the court was 4.30pm, he was refused entry at the main front entrance of the building, the security guard there informing Mr Miller that the counters were closed.
The following day, Thursday 24 March, the Applicant personally attended the Administrative Court Office, where he arrived at 3.30pm. It was Maundy Thursday and, for the court office, the last working day before the Easter break. Due to the volume of people in the queue, he was not seen until about 5pm, when he was informed by a member of staff that he had used an out-of-date claim form, and he would need to complete a different form. He was given a copy of the new form, and he asked if he could complete it there and then. He was told that he would have to return the next working day. The following day was Good Friday, and the next day upon which the court office was open was Tuesday 29 March. The Applicant attended the Administrative Court Office that day, and filed the claim.
The Secretary of State applied to strike out the claim on the ground that it was outside the six-week statutory time limit, and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. On 11 August 2016, on the papers, Ouseley J refused leave to proceed, on the basis that the claim was out-of-time, and so the court had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The Applicant renewed the application, which was heard by Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. Before the Deputy Judge, the Applicant submitted that, where a court is not functioning, it is not "accessible"; and, where a court is not accessible (at least during the normal working day), time is automatically extended...
To continue reading
Request your trial