[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> James, R (On The Application Of) v Joint Disciplinary Scheme [2001] EWHC Admin 1068 (20th December, 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/1068.html Cite as: [2001] EWHC Admin 1068

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

James, R (on the Application of v Joint Disciplinary Scheme [2001] EWHC Admin 1068 (20th December, 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		20 December 2001

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton:

1. On 24 November 1999 the Claimant, Mr Gerald James, issued an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Defendant to institute and to pursue disciplinary proceedings against him. On 30 November 1999 Latham J made an order refusing Mr James’ application. He ordered him to pay the costs of the Defendant in the sum of £4,000 plus VAT, i.e. £4,700 in all.
2. Mr James did not pay that sum. The Defendant obtained an order dated 7 December 2000 for him to be examined as to his means. On 6 February 2001, I heard an application by Mr James for that order to be set aside. Mr James appeared at that hearing with a cheque for the sum in question, and on his undertaking to pay that sum into Court the order dated 7 December 2000 was set aside. Giving judgment, I said:

“… (Mr James) has produced a cheque for the sum in question and is willing to pay that into court pending the result of his appeal, and indeed to give an undertaking to that effect.”

Mr James duly paid the sum of £4,700 into Court.

3. On 15 June 2001, Mr James’s application for permission to appeal and an extension of time to appeal from the order of Latham J was refused. Mr James was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
4. On 13 July 2001 Mr James applied for an order that the money paid by him into Court should remain in Court pending his application to petition the House of Lords by way of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
5. By letter dated 1 October 2001, the House of Lords informed Mr James that he had no competent appeal to the House of Lords. He had therefore exhausted his domestic remedies for the purposes of any application or appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
6. By letter dated 8 October 2001, Mr James applied to vary his application of 13 July 2001 so as to provide for the sum in Court to remain there pending his application to the European Commission of Human Rights, and he enclosed copies of letters relating to his application to the Commission. By letter dated 30 October 2001, the European Court of Human Rights (not the Commission) acknowledged his letter “from which it appears that you intend to lodge an application with the Court”, and referred to it as a provisional application, which had been given a file number. The Court called for further information, and for the purposes of this judgment I assume that it has been provided.
7. On 2 November 2001, the Defendant by its solicitors applied for the payment to them of the sum in Court, on the ground that it had been paid into Court pending the appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the Latham J.
8. Both parties sensibly agreed to my deciding on paper the application of the Claimant for the sum of £4,700 to remain in court pending his application to the Commission and to the European Court of Human Rights, and the application of the Defendant for that sum to be paid out on the ground that his domestic appeals have been exhausted.
9. This is my judgment on those applications. For this purpose, I have considered the correspondence of the parties, and in particular the several letters of Mr James to Mr Slidders of the Administrative Court Office.
10. In my judgment, the sum in court should be paid out immediately. It was paid into court pending the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. That application having been refused, and indeed there being no further domestic appeal, in principle the Defendant is entitled to payment of its costs. No good reason has been shown why those costs should not be paid to it.
11. Furthermore, any decision of either the European Court of Human Rights or the Commission will be some time in the future. There is no good reason for the Defendant to have to wait further for its costs. I do not think that the European Court of Human Rights or the Commission has power to reverse the order of Latham J, but even if it did, and either of them were so to order, there is no reason to believe that the Defendant would not be able to repay the sum of £4,700 to Mr James.
12. Accordingly, I accede to the Defendant’s application and I refuse Mr James’ application.