[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 >> Archer, R (on the application of) v Employment Tribunal & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 2022 (11 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2022.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2022

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 11th December 2001

Tuesday, 11th December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: On 30th November 2001 (Friday before last) I refused an application by Mrs June Maureen Archer for permission to appeal against a decision of Maurice Kay J given on 19th July 2001 in judicial review proceedings. An interested party in those proposed proceedings were the London Cab Drivers Club Limited. They had appeared by counsel at the hearing before Morris Kay J. They did not appear before me on Friday before last.
2. This further hearing has been listed because I had received, via the office from that club, a bundle of documents. I told the applicant, Mrs Archer, that I had received the bundle. Unfortunately they had not sent it to her as well. The hearing proceeded and I gave judgment. Mrs Archer then said that she thought my approach to her application may have been prejudiced by the fact that I had seen the documents submitted by the club. I told her that I had not read the documents, save to see what was being applied for, which was an order for costs, and save that there was one document to which she referred in her application which I was unable to find in her bundle of documents; so I looked through the club's bundle in order to find it. I should say that with her help I did at the hearing find it in her bundle. I gave the applicant the opportunity to consider the documents and to make any further submissions on the basis of them. I did not entertain the application for costs which had been made by the club who, as I have said, did not appear at the hearing before me. I based my decision on the bundle of documents which the applicant had prepared.
3. I received yesterday from the office, where it had been faxed, a letter bearing yesterday's date from Mrs Archer. She stated:

"Further to your letter dated 3 December 2001, which invites me to attend alone at a hearing fixed for Tuesday 11 December 2001 at or after 10.00am, I have regretfully to decline to attend such a hearing.

I am aware that it was Lord Justice Pill's suggestion that such a hearing be held, to discuss the placing before him of a large bundle of papers by the First Interested Party (who is not the Defendant in these proceedings) prior to the hearing of my Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal Out-of-Time, but feel that at this late stage nothing can now be gained which would be of any benefit to me or my case.

With the greatest respect, therefore, I formally inform you in writing that I shall not be attending before Lord Justice Pill (or any other Judge) at the Court of Appeal tomorrow."

4. My observations are these. First, I fully accept that no discourtesy to the court is intended. Second, it is clear that the applicant has had the opportunity now to consider the bundle of documents which the interested party ought to have disclosed to her. Third, sensibly if I may say so, she has decided not to pursue the matter. My judgment was not based on the documents submitted by the club, nor did I entertain the application for costs which they had made on paper.
5. Accordingly, no further order of this court is required.
(No orders made).