R (Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court ; R (Sivasubramaniam) v Kingston upon Thames County Court and another (Lord Chancellor's Department intervening)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Hooper |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 1088 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3429/2001 |
| Date | 13 December 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 1088 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
St Albans Crown Court
The Court Building
St Albans
AL1 3JW
The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper
Case No: CO/3429/2001
Mr Markandu Sivasubramaniam appeared in person
Mr Justice Hooper
This is an application for judicial review brought by the claimant in person. According to the judicial review claim form the defendants are the management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Mr Gordon Davies of that College. The date of the challenged decision is said in section 3 of the claim form to be 10 August 2001. During the oral hearing it became clear that the claimant wished to challenge what he said was a decision made by His Honour Judge Morgan sitting in the Kingston upon Thames County Court on 3 July 2001.
Given that the challenged decision is that of a judge and not the defendants named in the claim form, I order an amendment of the claim form to show as the defendant the Kingston upon Thames County Court.
To assist me to understand the history, the County Court provided me with the file. The file has enabled me to untangle the history of the proceedings, a task which took some considerable time.
A letter dated 5 July 2001 and accompanying order sent to the claimant on 5 July indicates that His Honour Judge Morgan had refused on 3 July the claimant's application dated 25 June for leave to appeal. That however cannot be right. The learned judge had already refused permission to appeal at an oral hearing at which the claimant was present on 11 June 2001. That becomes clear from the order drawn up on 13 June, following the 11 June hearing. The order stated that the claimant's applications were dismissed. The two applications were dated 3 May 2001 and 27 February 1998. The order further stated that there was to be no order as to costs and that permission to appeal was refused.
In the light of that it seems clear, and this is confirmed by an entry in the file, that what the judge was doing on 3 July was to give his reasons for having refused permission to appeal on 11 June. The challenged decision is therefore effectively the decision of 11 June refusing permission to appeal, the reasons for which refusal were given on 3 July in writing.
On 3 July 2001, the Judge wrote:
"No real prospect of appeal
No error of law by either District Judge in respect of either order.
Substantial delay by Claimant after recovery from mental illness before pursuing applications and no important point of principle."
The file makes it clear that the two orders referred to are orders made by District Judge Coni on 27 October 1997 and by District Judge Dimmick on 24 February 1998.
The Court file shows that the claimant's applications had been seen by His Honour Judge Bishop who had ordered a hearing:
"for the claimant's application for permission to restore application/appeal/directions".
I start with the application of 3 May considered and dismissed by His Honour Judge Morgan at the oral hearing on 11 June. The application was, the learned judge wrote:
"In substance for permission to appeal order dated 27th October 1997 striking out parts of claim and directing balance to be tried by arbitration hearing by District Judge."
The order made on 27 October 1997 can be found set out at page 16 of the bundle. District Judge Coni, sitting in the county court, having heard the plaintiff in person and the defendant's solicitors, ordered that various paragraphs of the plaintiff's claim were to be struck out and that he be given leave to amend his claim to a limit of £3,000. The District Judge ordered that this claim was to be heard under the then arbitration provisions. He ordered that standard arbitration directions should be issued.
His Honour Judge Morgan does not, on the papers available to me, seem to have specifically addressed the issue of the need for an order extending the time for the bringing of the application. The explanation for the delay put forward by the claimant can be found in a document set out at page 26–27 of the bundle. In March 1998 his flat had been broken into by a doctor, a social worker and others. In the words of the claimant "It was a murder plot". He was taken to Springfield Mental Hospital where he was put under compulsory medication "which weakened me mentally and physically and almost it was crippled me to death". He says that they demanded that he close all of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (M) v Ashworth Hospital Authority
... ... ] EWCA Civ 1036 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL ... Lady Justice Hale And ... Lord Justice Latham ... Case No: C3/2002/1661 ... and (b) of that section has been given by another registered medical practitioner, being a medical ... The Department produced its own draft in 1987, which also ... harmful or degrading effects of seclusion upon the patient and its potential for misuse by those ... ...
-
R (Sinclair Investments (Kensington) Ltd) v The Lands Tribunal
...judicial review should only be granted on very narrow grounds. In so holding, he applied the approach of this court in R(Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2003] 1 WLR 475. The effect of his decision is that a refusal by the Lands Tribunal to grant permission to appeal from the LV......
-
R (Dr George) v GMC & South Staffordshire NHS Trust
... ... CO/1797/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ... approaches its task is governed by another Order in Council, that is the General Medical ... ] 424 , at page 435, where May LJ cited what Lord Scarman had said in Preston v Inland Revenue ... again by the Court of Appeal in Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court [2002] EWCA Civ 1738 ... as a general proposition and in reliance upon the 1999 Act, and the legislative policy behind ... ...
-
R (Sinclair Investments (Kensington) Ltd) v The Lands Tribunal
... ... Tribunal should be granted by the High Court only in exceptional circumstances. Mr Justice ... ...