[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> London Borough Of Islington v Matin [2001] EWCA Civ 1758 (9 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1758.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1758

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE NEUBERGER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 9 November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: In this matter Mr Matin seeks to appeal an order of Neuberger J of 10 July 2001. That order was made in proceedings which had commenced in the Clerkenwell County Court. The proceedings had been subject to case management decisions by District Judge Jones and subsequently by His Honour Judge Reynolds.
2. Before Neuberger J, the case came on as an application for permission to appeal the order of His Honour Judge Reynolds. Neuberger J refused that application for permission. By section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 this court has no jurisdiction to deal with any purported appeal from a refusal of permission to appeal. Accordingly, in this case, Master Joseph, who originally determined that the court did not have jurisdiction, was entirely correct in doing so.
3. It should be said, lest there be any concern that the consequence produces injustice, that I can see no injustice in this case. The judgment of Neuberger J fully sets out the reasons why he refused permission to appeal. There is no doubt that Mr Matin was the subject of mal-administration by the court in relation to an action brought against him by a local authority in which he had a counterclaim which had been administratively dismissed. But, his position was entirely protected by permission being granted in subsequent proceedings brought by Mr Matin to amend those proceedings to make the same allegations as he made in the counterclaim, so he can properly litigate those issues before the court, if there is any merit in his submissions. He is not precluded from doing so; and that was the view taken by Neuberger J.
4. If this court did have jurisdiction to deal with an appeal from Neuberger J's order, the result would have been inevitable. Mr Matin would not have succeeded.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.