[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 >> Manu, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1900 (7 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1900.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1900

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 7 December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an application for permission to appeal against the decision of Sullivan J given on 15 June 2001. I have first dealt with and refused an application for an adjournment. In doing so, I have set out the background to the present application and the history of this litigation. I will not repeat that for present purposes.

2. Having refused the adjournment, I invited the applicant to tell me anything he wished to about the merits of the case. Understandably he has concentrated on the question of delay. I have referred to the delay between 24 November 1997, when the IAT dismissed the applicant's appeal from a determination from a Special Adjudicator, and February 2001 when the application for judicial review was made. That is a very long delay indeed. Judicial review is a remedy which, if it is to be sought, must be sought promptly. The applicant has told me that he was let down by his solicitors. He could not find the solicitor who had appeared for him before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Mr Kwame Agati. He did not know what to do. He then found that the solicitor had left the country. He went to a different legal adviser who told him how to present the case himself. The applicant cannot remember why he did not appear before Sullivan J on 15 June this year. I have referred to the judgment of Sullivan J. I find the explanation for the delay no more convincing than he did.
3. This application has no realistic prospect of success, having regard to the delays which have occurred and, accordingly, the application for permission to appeal is refused.
4. I only add that on my perusal of the papers submitted by the applicant I can, in any event, see no merit in the substance of the case.
Order: Application for permission to appeal refused.