[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 >> Queensbridge Investments Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 597 (28 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/597.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 597

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 28th March 2001

1. MASTER VENNE: This applicant Queensbridge Investments Ltd applies for permission to appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Newman given on 28th July 2000 to refuse an application for judicial review. The decision which the applicants seek to impugn is the refusal of the respondent, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to make grants of about £25,000 each in respect of nine flats at 61 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW7.
2. The applicants' notice was filed promptly on 11th August. On 24th November Lord Justice Pill refused permission to appeal on a consideration of the papers only, but in doing so he pointed out that he had not found some of the enclosures which had been referred to in the grounds of appeal. Consequently, he directed that if the application was renewed orally those documents should be identified or at least included in the bundle. Subsequently that application was renewed for an oral hearing and listed for hearing on 21st December. However on 14th December the applicants' solicitors, Messrs Vizards, Staples & Bannisters, wrote to the court to inform it that it had recently been agreed with the respondent council that a new application could be submitted for payment of the grants in issue. Consequently, they sought an adjournment of the oral hearing. That application for an adjournment was referred, once again, to Lord Justice Pill who granted the adjournment but directed that the applicants were to report on progress of the matter no later than 28th February 2001. The solicitors were informed of that direction and the Lord Justice's decision on 19th December. By 28th February no progress report had been received and consequently, on 12th March, the applicants' solicitors were told the matter would be listed before me today to enable them to show cause why their client's application should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. That letter has not produced any response or representations from those solicitors either by way of a letter or by way of an appearance before me today.
3. Consequently, in those circumstances, I order that unless a progress report is received within seven days from the sealing of today's order which confirms that this application is to proceed to an oral hearing without delay then this matter will stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further order but with no order as to costs.