Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 4th September 2012

High Court of Justice report The Queen on the application of John Michael Brace v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

CO/7971/2012

In the High Court of Justice

Queen’s Bench Division

Administrative Court sitting in Manchester

In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

            The Queen on the application of

            JOHN MICHAEL BRACE

            versus

            WIRRAL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

            Application for permission to apply for Judicial Review

            NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

Order by his Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a High Court Judge

Permission is hereby refused.

Observations:

  1. The correct way for the Claimant to have proceeded on the basis of his complaint about other candidates’ non-compliance with s79 LGA 2000* was to have made an election petition within 21 days which he did not do and which, if he had, would have provided a safeguard in the form of provision for security of costs.

     

  2. Moreover this claim is out of time not only because just outside 3 months but because it was not made promptly given that the Claimant made the point before the challenged election took place. It is particularly important that if there is a JR claim at all in respect of such matters (see paragraph 1 above) that it is made very speedily so as to avoid any prejudice and costs incurred by the election having taken place. No extension is justified simply because the Claimant broke his arm.

     

  3. Accordingly, no arguable basis for JR.

     

Signed: D. ???????? Date: 23 August 2012

Where permission to apply has been granted, claimants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the defendant’s evidence.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Sent/Handed to the claimant, defendant and any interested party/ the claimant’s, defendant’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date):

Solicitors:

Ref No.

Notes for the Claimant

(1)       Where the Judge has refused permission a claimant or his solicitor may request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing by completing and returning form 86B within 7 days of the service upon him of this notice.

(2)       If permission has been granted the claimant or his solicitor must within 7 days of the service upon him of this notice, lodge a further fee of £180.00 or a Fees exemption certificate if appropriate, to continue the proceedings. Failure to pay the fee or lodge a certificate within the specified period may result in the claim being struck out.

Notes to Defendants and Interested Parties

(1)       Where permission has been granted, a defendant and any other person served with the claim form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds must file and serve –

(a) detailed grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds; and

(b) any written evidence,

within 35 days after service of the order giving permission. 

*Note although the judgement reads s.79 LGA 2000, I have linked to s.79 LGA 1972 as it appears to be an error in this judgement.


Responses

  1. […] September 7, 2012 by John Brace Interest declarations: The author of this blog post was a candidate in the same election. The author of this blog post had a right of audience in the High Courts of Justice in The Queen on the Application of Mr. John Michael Brace v Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Permission… […]


Categories