Wednesday Law Report: New Procedure Relating to Appeals to Court of Appeal ; 27 October 2004 Jeyapragash V Secretary of State for the Home Department ( EWCA Civ 1260) Court of Appeal, Civil Division (Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Potter and Lord Justice Clarke) 21 September 2004
Kate O'Hanlon, Barrister, The Independent (London, England)
WHERE PARTIES did not adhere to the provisions of the new practice direction to Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court would require them to attend for a hearing, instead of granting an order by consent administratively.
The Court of Appeal made an order by consent that the claimant's claim for asylum should be remitted to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
In an appeal by the claimant against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the parties had agreed at the 12th hour that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal should be quashed, and that the appeal should be remitted for consideration by a differently constituted tribunal.
Shivani Jegarajah (M.K. Sri & Co) for the claimant; Parishil Patel (Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Lord Justice Brooke said that the order agreed by the parties would be made by consent. The court had, unusually, required a hearing in the present case, because the new practice direction to CPR 52 had been in effect since 1 July 2004, and the present case was the second with which the court had been concerned during the vacation in which the Home Office had given instructions to the Treasury Solicitor at a late stage, making it quite impossible for the court either to prepare its pre-reading or to replace cases in the list when a case settled.
The message of the amended Practice Direction was that, instead of regarding one minute before the Court of Appeal sat as the time up to which parties in a leisurely way could prepare the papers for the court, the new time was seven days before a hearing.
There was also provision in the new practice direction that a respondent to an appeal had to make its position clear as to whether it simply intended to resist the appeal on the grounds given by the tribunal, or whether it wished to serve a notice of cross-appeal and file a skeleton. …