No B3/2000/2866
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 548
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

								Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2

								Friday, 30th March 2001

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RUNDLE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Applicant was not represented and did not attend

The Respondent was not represented and did not attend

- - - - - - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: This is an application made by Mr Rundle in person for permission to appeal. He does not appear today to make the application orally, but I have considered the papers with care and have reconsidered with an open mind my initial refusal on the papers to grant permission to appeal in the light of his further submissions.
2.	Since 1979 Mr Rundle has been serving a sentence of life imprisonment. In the course of the sentence he has been made bankrupt. One of his major creditors was the Inland Revenue who had a claim for more than £1 million. On 4th April 2000 Mr Registrar Baister, in the Bankruptcy Court, heard an application by the applicant - who was present before him in person at that stage - against the Inland Revenue, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Official Receiver and Mr Hocking of Stoy Hayward - Mr Rundle's former trustee in bankruptcy. Although no formal judgment was apparently given by the registrar, I have his note of what happened, dated 11th April. From it, it appears that Mr Rundle confirmed at the hearing that his concern was to be furnished with proof that the money which his trustee in bankruptcy said he had paid to the Inland Revenue had in truth been paid to them. The solicitor for the Inland Revenue, who was present before the registrar, confirmed that it had been. Mr Rundle insisted on documentary proof. The registrar asked him -as I ask myself - why this should matter since, by making the admission in court, the Inland Revenue was waiving that much of its claim against Mr Rundle. According to the registrar's note, which I have no reason to doubt, Mr Rundle saw the point when it was made to him and desisted in his application.
3.	In consequence, the only thing the registrar had to decide was costs. Of those respondents present, the DTI asked for its costs. Mr Rundle did not oppose the application. He simply pointed out to the registrar, as he points out to this court, that on £7 a week he was not going to be able to pay. The order for costs was made.
4.	Mr Rundle seeks permission to appeal to this court, his suspicions having evidently been revived by a press report he has seen indicating that his trustee in bankruptcy has been or may have been in some professional trouble. Mr Rundle renews his application for documentary proof of payment. The answer is still the same. The Inland Revenue have admitted receipt of the payment of their dividend upon his bankruptcy. If written confirmation of this is required it can quite simply be asked for and obtained. Bringing the matter before a court is a waste of every one's time, Mr Rundle's included. It should not have come before the registrar, and the registrar was fully entitled to make no order except that the DTi's costs be paid.
5.	There is no basis at all for granting permission to appeal against his decision. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Order:  Application dismissed