Delay in filing a claim for judicial review with no good reason for extending time
In a claim for judicial review, CPR Pt 54, r.54.5 at present requires the claim form to be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose. While the parties may not extend that time limit by agreement, CPR Pt 3, r.1(2) empowers the court, under its general case management powers, to extend or shorten the time for compliance, even if an application for extension is made after the time for compliance has expired.
Section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (“the Act”) provides that where the High Court considers that there has been “undue delay” in making an application for judicial review, it may refuse to grant (a) leave for the making of the application or (b) any relief sought on the application, if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration.
In R (on the application of Kolb) v Buckinghamshire County Council [2013] EWHC 1055 (Admin) the claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the local planning authority (“LPA”) to grant planning permission to a developer for an energy from waste facility. The facility was intended to receive all of the LPA’s residual waste. The LPA and the developer were close to concluding contractual terms. The claim form was lodged five weeks after the expiry of the period of three months referred to above.
The LPA and the developer argued before the court that this amounted to undue delay. The developer also contended, in the context of the procurement process, that it would suffer substantial hardship if the claim were allowed to go ahead and ultimately succeeded. The court should exercise its power to refuse permission under section 31(6) of the Act. Against that, the claimant sought to lay the blame for the delay on the LPA, in terms of its handling a related complaint that he had made against it.
The court held that the claimant could and should have filed his claim form much earlier than he did. There had been undue delay. The LPA’s complaints procedure was not a potential source of the remedy sought by the claimant in the present proceedings, namely an order quashing the planning permission.
John Martin
