[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 >> Ahmed & Anor v London Borough Of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 821 (20 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/821.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 821

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Zucker)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 20th May 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: In 1995 Mr and Mrs Ahmed brought proceedings against the London Borough of Southwark alleging racial discrimination and victimisation, contrary to the Race Relations Act 1986, by reason of the Council's failure to carry out repairs and to re-allocate the Ahmed family between 1991 and 1995. The matter was heard before His Honour Judge Zucker QC sitting in the Central London County Court. On 7th April 1998 the judge dismissed Mr Ahmed's claim in its entirety on the basis that he had found no evidence of racial discrimination.
2. Mr. Ahmed applied for permission to appeal that decision on 5th May 1998, alleging that the judge had reached a wrong conclusion in relation to particular matters of fact. That application was heard by Evans and Chadwick LJJ on 10th July 1998. They refused Mr. Ahmed's application but made no order as to costs.
3. On 19th February 1999, pursuant to the judgment dated 7th April 1998 (that is Judge Zucker's judgment), Deputy District Judge Eynon, sitting in the Central London County Court, taxed and allowed the Council's costs of the action in the sum of £26,345.32. Mr. Ahmed's costs, taxed at £505, were to be set off against the Council's bill. That decision of District Judge Eynon was appealed. There were hearings before other tribunals, but on 24th August 2000 His Honour Judge Cooke, sitting with District Judge Langley and Deputy District Judge Martin as assessors, heard the appeal.
4. The first point that was raised in those proceedings related to an attack that Mr. Ahmed was making on the judgment of Judge Zucker, but Judge Cooke ruled that the costs procedures were not the appropriate procedure for attacking that judgment. In that he was clearly right. Having so ruled, he ruled out, for example, an extensive affidavit sworn by Mr. Ahmed making allegations in relation to that trial. However, the question of taxation was then argued as a distinct matter, and on that Judge Cooke and his assessors decided various aspects in favour of Mr. Ahmed. Ultimately, on that basis they made an order on 24th August to this effect, that Mr. Ahmed's appeal be allowed in part in respect of the items marked on the claimant's and defendants' bill of costs, that there be no order as to costs of the hearings on 5th June 2000 and 17th July 2000, the hearings of the previous appeals, and that the defendants pay the claimant's costs of the appeal assessed in the total sum of £515.20, such sum being set off against the defendants' costs as assessed. They refused permission to appeal.
5. Mr. Ahmed made no application to this court for permission to appeal until he filed an application on 20th December 2001. That is well over a year after the decision of Judge Cooke. He explained his failure to put in his application any earlier by his personal circumstances and the complications of the matter. As it would seem to me, one can of course make allowances for personal circumstances and one can make allowances for complications, but the sort of delay present on this application really cannot be explained away by such circumstances. It is right to say that one also ought to take into account the merits of an appeal. If there were very strong grounds for thinking that the order of the court below has in some way perpetrated an injustice, then however long the delay, it may well be that this court would exercise its discretion in favour of an applicant who has put in a notice so late. But the position is that Mr. Ahmed still really as his number one point wishes to argue that it was Judge Zucker's original decision which has perpetrated an injustice. That is really what he wants to argue about so far as the taxation of costs are concerned. But he is simply not entitled and will never be entitled to raise those points on a taxation of costs.
6. As regards any other matters, he is not able to point to any individual aspect which he says that Judge Cooke and his assessors got wrong. He has not indicated any point in relation to the taxation of costs which has any reasonable prospects of success, never mind the prospects of success high enough to get over his real problem, which is that he has been so late in filing this application. In those circumstances, this application for permission to extend time or to file an application for permission out of time must be refused.
Order: Application refused.