[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Cameron, R (on the application of) v Central London County Court [2001] EWCA Civ 1412 (31 August, 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1412.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1412

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Burton)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday 31st August, 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Miss Cameron, who appears in person, seeks permission to appeal the decision of Burton J of 11th May 2001 whereby he refused to grant her the relief that she was claiming in proceedings started in the Administrative Court.
2. This matter is part of a very long-running and now rather complex saga. It is not necessary for me to go into the history in great detail. It is sufficient to say that Miss Cameron brought proceedings against the governors of the Royal School, Hampstead in respect of her dismissal from their employment. Those proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution. She started fresh proceedings apparently after the expiry of the limitation period and these too were struck out. On 8th April 1999 she was ordered to pay costs in one or both of those proceedings. These costs were assessed in the sum of some £7,000-odd. She complained that the assessment of those costs was conducted in her absence and she applied to have the order set aside. That application came before His Honour Judge Hallgarten QC who, on 22nd November 1999, dismissed it. She further dismissed an application for a stay of----
3. MISS CAMERON: Excuse me, could I just mention that it was 24th November that Judge Hallgarten dismissed - sorry, there are a lot of dates.
4. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Whether it is the 22nd or the 24th does not matter.
5. MISS CAMERON: Well, it does matter.
6. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I would be grateful if you did not interrupt my judgment, thank you very much.
7. He also dismissed an application for a stay of execution of the order for costs. She did not appeal either of those orders at that time.
8. In circumstances which are unclear to me, the Central London County Court, apparently of its own motion, listed the application to set aside the assessment of costs for a further hearing on 17th March 2000. It came before Judge Ryland on that date. He ordered the application to be adjourned until after the determination of an application which he understood Miss Cameron to be intending to make for permission to appeal the order for costs by the Court of Appeal.
9. Bankruptcy proceedings supervened and there have been many applications made in and in connection with those proceedings, including at least two appeals to the Court of Appeal. It is unnecessary for me to go into those.
10. In the meantime, Miss Cameron started to urge the County Court to restore the application which had been adjourned by Judge Ryland on 17th March 2000. She wrote many letters to the court and, dissatisfied with the failure of the court to respond satisfactorily or indeed at all and in particular to fix a date, she started judicial review proceedings to require the County Court to fix the hearing. The application came before Burton J on 11th May 2001. He expressed considerable reservations as to whether he had jurisdiction to make any order of the kind that Miss Cameron was seeking. He suggested sensibly, however, that what she should do was to go to the County Court in person and demand that the adjourned application be restored.
11. Following that advice that is precisely what Miss Cameron did. Judge Bevington granted her application for the hearing to be listed, and it was listed to come before Judge Ryland on 27th June 2001. According to the witness statement made by Miss Cameron of 19th July, Judge Ryland said that the court had made an error in listing the application for hearing on 17th March 2000 and that her remedy, if any, was to have appealed Judge Hallgarten's order to the Court of Appeal. In those circumstances he refused to make any order in respect of the adjourned hearing.
12. Miss Cameron has now sought to appeal the order of Judge Hallgarten. She tells me that on 13th July she lodged a notice of appeal to the High Court seeking, a very long period out of time, to appeal that order. In those circumstances it is difficult to see what conceivable complaint Miss Cameron can now have about the order of Burton J, which it seems to me was entirely sensible and was not susceptible to an appeal which had any prospects of success.
13. When I asked her what her complaint now is and what she sought from me, her answer was that she wishes to complain about the persistent refusal of the Central London County Court (and I think also the Court Service) to reply to letters which she has written complaining about inefficiency over the years in dealing with this litigation in its widest sense. She seeks an order that I compel the correspondents to whom she has written to reply to the letters. I have no jurisdiction to make such an order. This is an appeal court and can only deal with appeals. The only application before me is for permission to appeal the decision of Burton J and, for the reasons that I have given, I refuse that application.
14. It seems to me that what lies at the heart of Miss Cameron's complaint is the order for costs that was made as long ago as April 1999. She is now attempting to have that order set aside by appealing the decision of His Honour Judge Hallgarten. All other matters, such as complaints of maladministration of the kind which have given rise to her grievances are matters which should be taken up administratively with the Court Service and, if necessary, with the Lord Chancellor's Department. They are not a matter for me and I make no order in respect of them.
15. My decision therefore is to refuse this application.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused. (Order not part of approved judgment)