IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE LTA 98/5396/4
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2
Monday, 22nd June 1998
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE and
LORD JUSTICE HUTCHISON
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
R E G I N A
THE COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION Respondent
ex parte DAVID TURPIN and LYNDA TURPIN Applicants
Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040 Fax: 0171 831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR C GEORGE QC and MR G JONES (instructed by Richard Buxton, Cambridge) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
THE RESPONDENT was not represented.
POST JUDGMENT DISCUSSION
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: Mr George, we grant leave to appeal. Your notice of appeal, in accordance with the usual practice, will have to be served and the appeal set down within seven days from today. There should be no difficulty about that as you now have clearly formulated grounds. The costs of this application will be costs in the cause. Could you give me the date of the new application for leave to move for judicial review?
MR GEORGE: My Lord, it is 16th February, at page 71 in the yellow bundle.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: We add a direction that the further application for leave to move for judicial review issued on 16th February 1998 be brought straight to this court and be heard at the same time as the appeal against the order of Mr Justice Moses, but subject to the right of the respondent to object, for which he will have liberty to apply to Lord Justice Hutchison as the single judge.
MR GEORGE: Can I seek clarification on that last matter, my Lord. Am I right in my understanding that there will come on to the Court of Appeal not only the application for leave to move for judicial review, which is that latest matter, but also, if the Court of Appeal on the hearing were to grant leave, you would be anticipating that they would also consider the substantive issue on that second matter. I presume that is what your Lordships had in mind, but I just raise it ----
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: Thank you. We will spell that out in the following way. The further application for leave to move for judicial review dated 16th February 1998 is to be brought straight to this court and is to be heard at the same time as the appeal against the order of Mr Justice Moses, with the application to follow if leave is granted, subject to the right of the respondent to object to that order, for which purpose he shall be at liberty to apply to Lord Justice Hutchison as the single judge.
MR GEORGE: I am very grateful. It may also assist those who are drafting the order if I give them the Crown Office reference to that application, which is CO/593/98.
There is one other matter. If your Lordships will turn to the order made by Lord Justice McCowan when he refused leave on the papers, which I hope your Lordships have, at the bottom of the first page of that it says, "It is further ordered that the costs of this application be paid by the applicant in any event." In the circumstances, would it not be appropriate that those costs also should be in the cause?
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: This is quite a familiar situation and I think the order we make automatically includes all costs of the application.
MR GEORGE: So long as it does, my Lord, and we are all clear on that.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: Yes, thank you.
MR GEORGE: There is going to be a complication because of the "without prejudice" letters and the bundles and so forth. I think that we can take out quite a lot of the material which is in the yellow bundle, but I apprehend that as regards the correspondence which is marked "without prejudice" it is more satisfactory for the full court if that is in a separate bundle.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: We will not make any direction as to that, Mr George, because we do not really know quite what ----
MR GEORGE: I was really seeking guidance as to whether it would be generally helpful to keep it in a separate bundle. We would prefer it all to be in one bundle, but I anticipate that it is probably simpler to keep it separate.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: It will reduce the chance of an objection if you do it that way.
LORD JUSTICE HUTCHISON: It did seem to me, if I may say so, that a good deal of the correspondence towards the end of the correspondence file is beside the point.
MR GEORGE: I agree, my Lord. I think we can reduce it.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: Mr George, when we grant leave we are now encouraged to fix an estimate if we can. What would be your suggestion?
MR GEORGE: One day, my Lord. It took less than a day below, I believe. There is obviously going to be an expansion on the new material, and of course one has the new application, and so it could go to a day and a half.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: We would not be happy with any more than a day, Mr George. But I think, with the pre-reading we do here, certainly a day will see it all right.
MR GEORGE: I would think so, yes.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: We will say that the estimate is a day.
MR GEORGE: I am grateful.