The effect of the decision of Collins J in R(Leach) v Commissioner for local Administration
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LATHAM,MR JUSTICE FORBES |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 445 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/288/2001 |
| Date | 12 June 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 445 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Lord Justice Latham and
Mr Justice Forbes
CO/288/2001
MR A MOORE (instructed by Pickworths, DX 6143, St Albans) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR D PERRY (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Tuesday, 12th June 2001
In this application the applicant seeks permission to challenge by way of judicial review a decision of the Brent Justices which was reached in relation to charges under the Protection from Eviction Act brought against the applicant.
The course of the hearing was somewhat protracted. We are told that there are some 100 pages of typed notes of evidence and submissions. The justices clearly found the case one which required considerable thought, because they retired for a matter of some hours before announcing their decision. They were then asked for reasons; and the justices' clerk retired for a significant period of time with the magistrates before ultimately emerging and eventually the magistrates producing reasons. Those reasons were in short form and essentially simply asserted that the justices concluded that the factual basis of the charge had been made out. In relation to the charge of which the applicant was convicted, there was a statutory defence which was not expressly dealt with in the justices' reasons.
Complaint is made firstly as to the decision itself, on the basis that the decision was perverse. Secondly, complaint is made about the procedural irregularities which it is said arose by reason of the fact that the justices' clerk retired for a significant period at a time which might be considered by the applicant to suggest that he was playing a substantial part in the decision making process. Finally, it is said that the reasons which were given, bearing in mind the substantial nature of the case and the existence of a statutory defence, were inadequate, and accordingly did not meet the standards, it is said, either of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Ewing and another) v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and another
...defendants and interested parties a direct role at the permission stage. In R (Leach) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2001] EWHC Admin 445, Collins J had allowed an application by a defendant for the costs of filing the acknowledgement of service, required by rule 54.8. He consider......
-
R (on the Application of Bakhtiyar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Costs on Aos) (IJR)
...may be awarded the costs of attending an oral permission hearing, but it confirms the decision of Collins J in R (Leach) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2001] EWHC 445 (Admin) in relation to the costs of the AoS. The reasons why those costs are recoverable is that given by Collins ......
-
R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council
...I continue, I should mention the ruling of Collins J. in R (on the application of Leach) v. Commissioner for Local Administration [2001] EWHC Admin 445, a case concerning a defendant's claim to the costs of filing an acknowledgement of service, and the effect attributed to it in the notes ......
-
Danville Walker v Contractor General
...defendant could only recover the costs of filing the acknowledgement of service ( R (Leach) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2001] EWHC Admin 445 (Collins J)). 16 Despite the power to award costs in England and Wales, the current Practice Direction on judicial review contains a stat......