Dingemans: Necessary to apologise on behalf of the Court of Appeal
The “serious failings” of an immigration claimant’s lawyers in appealing a decision were rendered irrelevant by mistakes in the Court of Appeal office, the court has admitted.
Lord Justice Dingemans apologised on behalf of the Court of Appeal for failures to seal the appellant’s notice on two occasions, leading to a delay of nearly four years in the case being dealt with.
“In these very particular circumstances, in my judgment it would be fair and just, and in accordance with the overriding objective, to grant the applicant an extension of time for filing the appellant’s notice and bundle.”
The claimant, Arifuzzaman Rana, sought an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal and, if granted, the hearing of the application.
Mr Rana, who moved to the UK from Bangladesh in 2007, had his application for indefinite leave to remain refused by the Home Office in 2018, a decision upheld by the First-tier Tribunal.
The Upper Tribunal refused permission to apply for judicial review of the tribunal decision and it was that ruling that he sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
He submitted an appellant’s notice on 5 August 2020. Under the CPR, this had to be accompanied by the sealed order being appealed and the skeleton argument in support of the appeal – but was not. The skeleton was filed nearly three months later.
Dingemans LJ said: “There were delays in the registry of the Court of Appeal office because the appellant’s notice was filed during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the appellant’s notice was not issued.”
On 30 October 2020, the Court of Appeal office emailed Mr Rana’s solicitors, Essex firm Liberty Legal, to say they had 14 days to file the appeal bundle after receipt of the sealed appellant’s notice. In fact, the appellant’s notice was still not sealed but they lodged the bundle on 18 November anyway.
Some 15 months later, counsel asked whether the court had made a decision. The office could not find any record of the application having been sealed and asked for a new appellant’s notice to be filed, with the documents, and a request for an extension of time.
“The appellant’s notice was then overlooked and further delays occurred,” the judge said – it was finally issued and sealed on 15 May 2024.
Dingemans LJ said there was “a serious failure on the part of the applicant’s legal representatives to comply with the rules” originally.
“It is never enough simply to send in an appellant’s notice and leave the office to chase for missing documents. Such an approach creates extra work for the office, and leads to delays in dealing with other appeals. Further, there was no good reason for the failure to file the documents.
“However, when considering all of the circumstances of the case, it is necessary both to acknowledge, and to apologise on behalf of the Court of Appeal for, the failures to seal the appellant’s notice in or around November 2020, and for the failures to seal the refiled appellant’s notice from April 2022 to May 2024.
“These failures to seal the appellant’s notice either in November 2020 or in April 2022 mean that the serious failings on the part of the applicant’s legal representatives would not have made any material difference to the progress of the application.”
But having granted an extension of time, the court went on to refuse permission to appeal.
Leave a Comment